It has been brought to my attention that as a result of all the hoopla over our paper published in Remote Sensing recently, that the Editor-in-Chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned. His editorial explaining his decision appears here.

First, I want to state that I firmly stand behind everything that was written in that paper.

But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal

But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.

If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation.

People who are not involved in scientific research need to understand that the vast majority of scientific opinions spread by the media recently as a result of the fallout over our paper were not even the result of other scientists reading our paper. It was obvious from the statements made to the press.

Kudos to Kerry Emanuel at MIT, and a couple other climate scientists, who actually read the paper before passing judgment.

I’m also told that RetractionWatch has a new post on the subject. Their reporter told me this morning that this was highly unusual, to have an editor-in-chief resign over a paper that was not retracted.

Apparently, peer review is now carried out by reporters calling scientists on the phone and asking their opinion on something most of them do not even do research on. A sad day for science.

(At the request of Dr. Spencer, this post has been updated with the highlighted words above about 15 minutes after first publication.- Anthony)

UPDATE #1: Since I have been asked this question….the editor never contacted me to get my side of the issue. He apparently only sought out the opinions of those who probably could not coherently state what our paper claimed, and why.

UPDATE #2: This ad hominem-esque Guardian article about the resignation quotes an engineer (engineer??) who claims we have a history of publishing results which later turn out to be “wrong”. Oh, really? Well, in 20 years of working in this business, the only indisputable mistake we ever made (which we immediately corrected, and even published our gratitude in Science to those who found it) was in our satellite global temperature monitoring, which ended up being a small error in our diurnal drift adjustment — and even that ended up being within our stated error bars anyway. Instead, it has been our recent papers have been pointing out the continuing mistakes OTHERS have been making, which is why our article was entitled. “On the Misdiagnosis of….”. Everything else has been in the realm of other scientists improving upon what we have done, which is how science works.

UPDATE #3: At the end of the Guardian article, it says Andy Dessler has a paper coming out in GRL next week, supposedly refuting our recent paper. This has GOT to be a record turnaround for writing a paper and getting it peer reviewed. And, as usual, we NEVER get to see papers that criticize our work before they get published.

Hmmm…interesting letter of resignation. Seems he has based his “opinion” one two things, 1. Some of the reviewers might hold some heretical thoughts and 2. a lot of other scientists have published papers saying otherwise.

I think the direct implication of point to is that minority views should never be published.

From Wagner’s letter, “Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the
review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”

I thought reviewers are impartial? Isn’t that what they always say when reviewers who share AGW notions reject papers that conflict with their personal views?

So the stated reason is the suspicion that the 3 peer reviewers may have shared a bit of AGW skepticism. Good thing that never happens among Warmists. Where a scientist speculating things like extra-terrestrials are going to destroy mankind so the planet can be pristine again or that AGW causes kidney stones can be published after a review by a panel that resembles the three stooges. Using the word ‘stooge’ in both senses.
The fact that upsets these people is the paper is devastating to their hypothesis of an ever warming planet. It demonstrates that the modeled assumptions regarding heat retention are simply wrong by a factor of 2 or so.And that shit cans a whole lot of climate models and explains why they have dramatically failed to predict either weather or ‘climate’.

AGW has become a major business entity with powerful political tenacles pulling strings in the background. The science of climatology has been totally corrupted. Time to turn off the federal money faucet.

“In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.”

It’s not ignoring them, it’s challenging them.

How could one paper be so disastrous to science as to require a career to be sacrificed? Even if it’s dead wrong, there are plenty of dead wrong peer-reviewed science articles, it makes no sense. Cult nut stuff!

What you ignore will become more.
What you tolerate will take over.
What you challenge will change.

“…the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”

I see. The editorial team didn’t run it by the Pope first. Odd, when you consider how in the previous paragraphs the reviewers receive praise for their scholarly and scientific prowess, a showing that their “sceptic notions” may well be with foundation.

As Dr. Spencer advocates, let the science of the arguments be played out in public.

Wagner’s editorial is just about the most cowardly thing I have ever seen. Here he finds it scandalous how many people are actually reading his journal:

Unfortunately, their campaign [Spencer and Braswell’s campaign to publicize the availability of their paper] apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication.

Wagner’s actual objection is not to anything in the paper, but to the way Forbes Magazine and others have promoted the paper as “blowing a gaping hole in global warming alarmism.” The meat of Wagner’s protest, to the extent that there is any meat, is to deny that the paper does what these statements that are not in the paper say it does:

But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.

Ludicrous. I want to ask, “how could someone with such a livid yellow streak ever become editor of a journal”? But then it’s obvious isn’t it? Nobody can make editor of a climate journal today unless they are yellow.

This reminds me of the fact that almost immediately after publishing Lindzen’s 2001 “Iris” paper, the Editor of BAMS was replaced, and the new editor immediately had published a separate paper (not a comment!) “rebutting” the paper, mainly making an argument which Lindzen et al. showed to be wrong quite easily.

Makes you despair! Let’s face it, we’re fighting a losing battle. Reality doesn’t count any-more the politicians aren’t going to change the course they’ve embarked on. We’ll just have to put up with our friends and family members being reduced to superstitious simpletons.

Once again we see the attacks on our 1st Amendment; a continuation of demonizing truths, in an organized and deliberate effort to silence any who attempt to enlighten us ignorant uneducated morons. How dare you appose the findings of such political powers as the all knowing IPCC!

Next will be pressure to sensor the internet, cleansing and punishing those who are not in step with the global agenda Mesiters political gain. Big brother government oversight designed on the premise to “protect the innocent.” Agency powers driven by political goals.

A sad day for all of us.

Support truth in science, and stand for a higher road of ethics. Stand together in exposing those who sensor truth of any genre.

In my opinion, good riddance to the editor. He basically is saying in his letter of resignation that as “Gate keeper” he let a skeptical paper get through and he accepts responsibility for that and resigns. I also find it interesting he makes this very telling remark in his letter. “Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required….” Basically, he is saying that in order to get published, the data has to agree with the models and in this case it doesn’t.

[But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.]

Almost every day now I’m hearing of yet another academic who couldn’t get their work published because they made the fatal mistake of finding evidence that counters the hysteria about scaled up CO2 warming.

Another interesting thought….. if 98% of scientists agree that man is primarily responsible for climate change… how did three randomly selected scientists all happen to be skeptics? The odds of that would have been less than 1 in 100000. Lucky day for us of the more skeptical persuasion I guess :-).

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.

They said the same thing about Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren in regard to bacterium causing ulcers.

In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim. The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong.

Hmm, perhaps there are more skeptical academics out there than I thought. Is this a warning to future editors that they have to look more carefully to ensure they find reviewers without “climate sceptic notions” (and the proper level of alarmist notions)?

BTW, to fully appreciated the context of the letter, you have to read the rest of the paragraph that I didn’t quote. Wagner goes on to explain why he no longer thinks the paper is worthy of publishing, but his reasoning seems to be more over-reaction than logic. I wouldn’t be surprised if more is happening behind the scenes than appears in the letter, but I’ll leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

“I am absolutely staggered by the reasons Mr Wagner proffers for his resignation.

He says that the authors and other sceptics ‘exaggerated’ the findings in the MSM – as if no other paper by any scientists supportive of AGW has ever been exaggerated in press releases in the MSM.
In fact, anybody who hasn’t been living in a cave these past few years cannot have failed to notice the daily horror stories about the terrible effects of AGW we’re given, based on ‘new research’ – pushed by the PR departments of the various universities and colleges.

Then he complains that ‘the sceptics’ were so successful in their ‘campaign’ that in a month the paper was downloaded 56,000 times! So why is that bad? How does he know that only sceptics downloaded this paper?

He then has the effrontery to suggest that the three scientists, invited to review this paper by the managing editor, who gave the paper their thumbs up, were somehow sceptics themselves, insinuating that they did not do their job properly.

There have been too many examples of ‘pal review’ by The Team not to grasp what Mr Wagner is complaining about, namely that only The Team should have the right to review and reject papers, especially those which do not comply with their take on AGW.

I am sickened by this resignation letter, the reasons given therein, and can’t help wondering why Mr Wagner choose to resign rather than embrace open dialogue between sceptics and warmists.”

Has anybody else noticed, the end result of this brouhaha is that BLOGS (“various internet discussion fora“) are considered at the same level as peer-reviewed papers. So when the usual brainless warmist pops around saying “you haven’t published your results!” we have a ready-made example that blogs are enough, to answer peer-reviewed papers.

In fact, the idiotic twitter bot now answers my tweets with references to SkepticalScience, no less.

Congratulations to all and especially to Anthony. A new era has begun.

This resignation is completely over the top.to the point where it can only be contrived. What Editor-in-Chief complains that an article in his journal has been downloaded TOO many times? Is the goal of scientific journals for publish articles for a readership of zero?

That’s just the beginning.

He states clearly that the peer review process was in no way circumvented, and the process was conducted with integrity. So why resign?
He then claims that the reviewers “may” have shared the views of the authors. He presents no evidence that this is so. So why resign?
Further he explains, there are publications out there that supposedly refute this paper, and that he only became aware of them after publication. Again, so why resign? IF the argument had merit, any merit at all, it would be the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief to conduct an impartial investigation, and if circumstances warranted, recommend a retraction.

The only way that an Editor-in-Chief, or anyone else in a position of authority for that matter, resigns a prestigious position is when they attempt to impose their will on the organization, and fail. Had he demanded of his staff a retraction and been refused, that would be cause for resignation. Had the process been shown to lack integrity of which he was aware and did nothing about, that would be cause for resignation. But this explanation?

This explanation should read:

AGW theory shown by artifical models is correct. We accidently publisherd a paper that showed the opposite from actual observation of the real world, after subjecting it to thorough and rigorous peer review processes that confirmed the observational science, and we cannot provide sufficient or logical reasoning to justify retracting it, and so, our Editor-in-Chief is resigning, protesting as he does the number of people who have read the paper when clearly they should not have been allowed to see it because it refutes the artificial models. We repeat, AGW theory shown by artificial models is correct.

It all sounds very odd. What the chap is basically saying is that if it had been reviewd by warmistas and thrown out that would have been alright as that’s the majority view. If we used that logic then we’d still have the inquisition and the world would still be flat.
I wonder where he will pop up next, no doubt the warmistas will welcome him with open arms, well he is one of them with out a doubt.

Wagner resigned because it became apparent to him that the review process was flawed by letting through work that had previously been shown to be crap. He probably sees his primary responsibility as giving up his position as editor, and that it is either Spencer’s & Braswell’s responsibility to retract their own paper, or for it to be scientifically refuted by peer review, as will happen next week in Geophysical Research Letters, in a paer by John Abraham.

Wagner is after all just the editor. He’s not the arbiter of all science – or are you now suggesting that science be conducted soley by editorial primature and prescription? It would certainly cut out that inconvenient nastiness of experimentation, replication, and peer-review…

“In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it
essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal.”

Somebody put the fear of Gaia in old Wolfgang. Imagine that: three reviewers missed the fact that the paper “ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.” I guess those three reviewers must be first year graduate students, right? But Wolfgang elaborates on the point in his letter as follows:

“The use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models is therefore a very important part of our work. But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists. Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data. Only through this close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into account.”

Now, this is a truly novel step in the history of science and the history of peer review. Data that contradicts some model cannot be accepted for publication in an article whose authors are not modelers because only modelers understand the “complex aspects” involved in “modeling processes.” In plain English, what this means is that data that contradicts model results must be pre-approved by approved modelers before it can be submitted for publication.

So, in the case of this one journal, it is clear as a bell that modelers have succeeded in suppressing all criticism of their work that is based on data. You must think about this for a while and let it sink in. It is a clear, robust, and successful example of some scientists acting to suppress criticism of their work. If you had any doubt that publication in climate science has been corrupted by power, then you have clear evidence to remove that doubt.

Of course, Wolfgang’s description of position taken by modelers undermines their argument for rejecting Spencer’s work. The burden lies on the modelers to state for all to see the “complex aspects” that data folk cannot understand and to explicate them in the context of scientific method. The number one sin of modelers is that they refuse to explicate their work in the context of scientific method and insist on treating each of their models as the product of a unique and new genius who cannot be understood by the unwashed Phds, but who must be treated as absolute authority. (My guess is that Wolfgang shares this view of the matter; otherwise, the points would not be so clear in his resignation letter.)

A quote from Wolfgang Wagner’s Remote Sensing editorial explaining why he is resigning as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal.

“Only through this [the use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models] close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into account.”

Color me confused. I thought the “science was settled”, which implies that climate models are close to perfect if not perfect even when they disagree amongst themselves. Isn’t it redundant to “cooperate” with perfection? What other choices are there–criticize, disdain, ignore, mock?

You just watch the new EIC, Franny Armstrong, get the paper retracted so that the AR5 team can pretend it never existed.

Unbelievable. Still, it’s a massive own-goal. If EVER anybody wanted proof of the central pillar of Climategate, that the peer-review process has been completely subverted by the Team and their acolytes, here it is in fluorescent 20-foot-high lettering.

This is the funniest damned thing I’ve seen in a while. Buhhhbye Wolfy. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

He’s resigning because 3 well qualified scientists agreed with 2 well qualified scientists and that one paper contradicts another paper……..

Here’s some things we’ve learned…….

Consensus? Well, there appears to be one…… reviewers of Remote Sensing are in agreement.The peer-review process is flawed…….. ahahahhahhaha!!! No doubt.We need to make sure not all reviewers are of the same mind set …… ROTFLOL Wolfy, baby, I couldn’t agree more.News media sensationalizing science papers? Oh my, well we mustn’t have that! It just won’t do!

I just hate it when stuff like this happens! It’s a miscarriage of science!!! ROTFLOLPMP!!!!
Maybe we should just let the travesty be the editor-in-chief or permanent reviewer. Wolfy seems to think he’s the arbiter of science.

Totally irrelevant. After a lifetime of peer review, I can assure you that 80% of what is published is crap.

Warmista should have responded to Spencer by explicating (look up the word) their objections to the data and doing the explication in the context of scientific method. Warmista adamantly refuse to discuss scientific method and they always appeal to their own authority to override scientific method. That is what happened here. In the future, data must be approved by the modelers criticized. Can you read it a different way?

davidmhoffer: right on the button. I agree with your analysis. I see this as a more carefully worded resignation than some are seeing. The contradictions are deliberate. He is saying that he did his job, the respected peer reviewers did theirs, but that he is being forced to deny this fact by agencies or persons beyond his control. His response is to resign rather than retract what he sees as a perfectly justifiable publication of Spencers Observations.
The nett result will be another 56,000 people downloading the paper to see what the fuss is about . Team fail.

Anyone who has dealt with electronic systems or systems engineering in general will immediately recognize the main themes in Spencer and Braswell. Of course, unlike the somewhat discoverable parasitic terms and unintentional feedbacks that can wreak havoc in an electronic system, here such terms are still a bit mysterious and not all of them are known or easily knowable.

“The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one
“accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process.”

Sounds good so far, but then…

“the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.”

If you go on to read his response the former editor-in-chief is really upset about the response to the paper and not to the paper itself. “which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media”. Unless he is silly enough to believe the Spencer and Braswell paper was the only one ever published in Remote Sensing that had some problems.

…I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements…

Unlike the like-minded ‘warmists’ that have much exaggerated their claims in public statements? But, correctly stated, neither side should be pushing exaggerated claims – but, similar to politics, even if the claim is exaggerated, it appears that only one side gets called on it.

Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication.

So, it’s a bad thing that people would want to download and read the paper and make their own inferences and conclusions based on that paper… versus, what? Blindly taking the word of someone?

But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.

I don’t beleive you need to refute all of them – especially when only one will suffce. Performing a million experiments with the same result will never prove it right. It might lead everyone to the conclusion that it is right, but it only takes one example to prove it wrong.

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view … but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.

Since scientific theories are tested by observation, they are true if and only if each and every event they describe and predict, from the beginning of the universe to the end, in fact occurs exactly as expected. Theories, no matter how solid they might seem, must be discarded as false the very first time they fail to describe real events.

If Mr. Wagner’s career can be preserved by the flawed act of accepting peer reviewers who have the consensus view only then it is fitting and good that his career is now ended. A person who is not a skeptic is also not a scientist. This process needs to be repeated at other publishing organizations.

Look at the whole leftosphere in any activity. The end justifies the means. There is little room for science, policy, law, economics if it does not further the end. The heretics are attacked via PR, via attorney’s, via falsehood, via slander etc. It’s a battle of illusions versus common sense. The leftosphere can not stomach having their illusions shattered by science etc.

It looks like Science journals and blogs need to make a pledge that they will adhere to the scientific method. And get a a sticker for it. As much as I hate pledginess.

Respect for climate science just dropped another notch. Let’s hope this gets as much press coverage as the original paper and becomes a vehicle to further push for defunding of the IPCC here in the USA.

The Climategate emails explain exactly what has happened here and it is the same approach as with the Von Storch, Climate Change journal editorial board resignation and the Soon and Baliunas paper.

I’ve read comments recently that the Team was going take another approach with respect to Spencer’s paper rather than just bang out another dismissal/contradictory paper. Well, here it is except it is an old “____”, “_____” tactic. (the blanks are not gentlemanly terms).

I think you missed the real reason the editor resigned Anthony. He states his point clearly: “trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.” He continues: ” Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.”

Good Wolfgang resigned with the wrong reason. He is not the right guy in that position. If that is all, a good day for those who oppose dogmas. One team player less as gatekeeper. The wording of the resignation letter indicates that he was wrong all the time – there is no such thing as a forcing obligation to consult with climate modelers before, if the peer review was done properly. This resignation, if done on the course of “poor peer review” was overdue a long time – but this was his camp. How strange is all that.

“But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.”

For my money, the use of the definitive “the” before the words “global warming phenomenon” says all that we need to know about Mr. Wagner’s prejudices.

Sounds like he needed to resign. There is only one question that matters: Did the paper meet the necessary criteria for being included in the journal? Is his letter, he answered that question as “yes”. It shouldn’t matter if Fox News and Forbes did stories on the paper. So why does he mention it?

It really sounds like he got mad that this paper got through, started trying to get some changes made to the submission criteria (which contained phrases like “the right people” and “think of the children”), got shot down, got madder, and resigned.

In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

Translation:

The problem brought to my attention by the “team” is that the paper didn’t meet their majority view. It kicked against the pricks of consensus. It offered a scientific observation that did not agree with their models and that really angered them. Then the media really rubbed it under nose. Boy did the excrement hit the fan for letting this paper see the light of day! Of course, I was reminded that models trump observation in all cases where climate grant funding is involved. Silly me to forget, leaving that point to be missed in our review process. Just as Pharoah Horemheb struck the name of Akhenaten from obelisks and records of history for insulting the gods, I too face a similar fate, relatively speaking. This regrettably brought me to the decision to quit before they have me fired. Perhaps in doing so, I shall redeem my career somehow but obviously not as a journal editor. Everybody took this so seriously.

“Wagner resigned because it became apparent to him that the review process was flawed by letting through work that had previously been shown to be crap. He probably sees his primary responsibility as giving up his position as editor, and that it is either Spencer’s & Braswell’s responsibility to retract their own paper, or for it to be scientifically refuted by peer review, as will happen next week in Geophysical Research Letters, in a paer by John Abraham.”

If the paper refuting Spencer and Bradwell will not be published until next week, on what basis is Wagner concluding that the paper is crap? Or is that merely a reflection of your own wishes?

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems that the paper was flawed because it did not incorporate opposing views. If that is the criteria to be used, every paper written, submitted and reviewed by warmsist is flawed as they do not incorporate the views of the skeptics.
Maybe the hidden message in the resignation was that skeptics need to use the rejection and resignation as the new standard for ALL papers, including those of the warmists. A pretty big drum to beat, and crafted by someone who lost his job by violating it, no matter how idiotic the result.

Bernard J. says:
September 2, 2011 at 10:08 am
“Here’s an idea – Spencer & Braswell 2011 was and remains crap, and Wagner is calling it.
Ockahms razor gentleman. It just happens to cut you the wrong way.”

If I were a warmist I would be VERY careful with the name William Of Occam. Ferenc Miskolczi says
“If the system energetically could increase its surface temperature, it need not wait for our anthropogenic CO2 emissions, since another GHG, water vapor, is available in a practically infinite reservoir, in the surface of the oceans.”

The system dynamics can already be described with the water vapor GHG effect. CO2 only displaces some of the water vapor but can’t change the dynamics.

You knew where you stood 500 years ago with science and the catholic church .. no longer it seems

Andy
_______________________
In my view, there has been a role- reversal. The AGW community in support of the IPCC position has assumed the role of the Church vis a vis Galileo’s troubles. Anyone with viewpoint not aligned with the orthodoxy is subject to the fury of the new church of AGW.

One thing I was right about.. as the Sept 14 Gore-a-thon approaches, the agw army is stepping up their campaign to isolate, demonize and destroy any idea that runs contrary to their drumbeat of bologna that their lemmings march to. Fortunately, the truth shall win out in the end.

The Warmists seem to be one-trick ponies. They need to consult Mafia types or possibly Mexican gangs if they want to step up their intimidation game. The “science” they practice is not the one I signed up for.

17th Century headline:
Geocentric epicyclist resigns the presidency of the Astrologers Guild,
in protest of Kepler publishing heliocentric ellipticalism:

‘Our astrolabe models of the heavens require close cooperation by properly filtered naked-eye observations. Galileo’s newfangled telescope has no place in proper astrology.

We protest the unlicenced publication of Kepler’s anti-scientific rants. For two-thousand years the smartest scientists in the world have established the skilled prediction capability of epicycle models. The consensus is against Kepler’s ugly ellipses.’

Joe Bastardi says, September 2, 2011 at 12:20 pm:
One thing I was right about.. as the Sept 14 Gore-a-thon approaches, the agw army is stepping up their campaign to isolate, demonize and destroy any idea that runs contrary to their drumbeat of bologna that their lemmings march to. Fortunately, the truth shall win out in the end.”
(My bold)

Totally irrelevant. After a lifetime of peer review, I can assure you that 80% of what is published is crap.
======================================================

I’m beginning to think most of our warmista friends don’t actually read any peer-reviewed papers. Do they not follow the myriad of contradictory papers published in the journals? Do they not recall that our floating polar bears was a peer-reviewed paper? Or the constant blathering about the Amazon was derived from peer-reviewed papers? Or that Antarctic temps debacle was from peer-reviewed papers? Aliens, mental disease, plankton, algae……. all are from peer-reviewed sources. How anyone ascribes any sort of validity to a paper simply because it was peer-reviewed is beyond me.

Bernard, you can’t say Spencer&Braswell is crap. You’ve hitched your wagon to the peer review process. It is really an all or nothing prospect. Either peer-review is a euphemism for accepted science or it isn’t. I think it has become obvious that the warmista believe peer-review is accepted science only when it agrees with their world view. Me? I find the peer-review as a laughable bastardization of the scientific process. Its magnificent, but it isn’t science.

I think the score IPCC 1, Scientific Progress 0 was the score at halftime. I think the final score is more likely to be IPPC 1, Scientific Progress 2. The more interest this story generates the better it is for the skeptical side.

A bit odd how Richard Black of the BBC finds it necessary to highlight Dr Spencer’s faith so much in his article. Also odd how he likes the term ‘mainstream scientists’ now if that’s not evidence of ‘his’ bias what is?

One thing I was right about.. as the Sept 14 Gore-a-thon approaches, the agw army is stepping up their campaign to isolate, demonize and destroy any idea that runs contrary to their drumbeat of bologna that their lemmings march to. Fortunately, the truth shall win out in the end.

And what will you do for a living when the truth finally overwhelms the real bologna, Joe? Full-time Arctic ice forecasting?

Seems that Wagner feels that he let his journal and the peer review process be misappropriated for political ends.

It’s a wedge tactic. An attempt to be able to say ‘published in a peer reviewed journal’ when the material was only marginally related to the area where the journal and review panel had expertise and familiarity with established knowledge – ie not really peer review at all.

In my own small way I have been an outspoken skeptic IRT the speculative hypothesis of Man-Made Global Warming. I have always been shocked at the vehemence of the alarmists. Early on this excessive emotionalism on what has been characterized as science betrayed it as a religion camouflaged with science. As any new wave fanatic religion it has core militants (defenders of the faith) that believe because they have faith and rationalize from there on. Anyone that opposes their set of beliefs are blasphemous and are denying god. This appears to be a central human inclination amongst certain types of people.

I use to use my real name in AOL environmental blog posts. However AOL apparently received enough threats that my name was banned from posting. I was forced to use a pseudonym of forever be banned from AOL blogs.

I once thought we lived in a world of enlightnment. I now realize nothing has changed from the days of the Middle Ages of intellectual intolerance.

“Mr Ward described the tactic of publishing in off-topic journals as a “classic tactic” of scientists dismissive of man-made climate change. “Those who recognise that their ideas are weak but seek to get them into the literature by finding weaknesses in the peer review system are taking a thoroughly disreputable approach,” he said.”

Warmophiles have wrestled complete control of the process from the hands of anybody skeptical of CAGW. There is no place left but the blogs. They have gamed the peer-review process and when lapses occur they will now use the ‘off-topic journal’ dismissal.

Unbelievable. Still, it’s a massive own-goal. If EVER anybody wanted proof of the central pillar of Climategate, that the peer-review process has been completely subverted by the Team and their acolytes, here it is in fluorescent 20-foot-high lettering.
***************
Agreed. Hopefully the media will also stumble on the fact that since 97% of scientists are supposed to agree with the consensus, that gives a 0.0027% chance of finding 3 out of 3 peer reviewers who do not share their views.
********************
dfbaskwill says:
September 2, 2011 at 12:25 pm

The Warmists seem to be one-trick ponies. They need to consult Mafia types or possibly Mexican gangs if they want to step up their intimidation game.
********************
Be careful what you wish for. The Warmists know that the game is up, and that intimidation and suppression of dissent are their only hope. Anything is possible.

dfbaskwill says:
September 2, 2011 at 12:25 pm
“The Warmists seem to be one-trick ponies. They need to consult Mafia types or possibly Mexican gangs if they want to step up their intimidation game. The “science” they practice is not the one I signed up for.”

Clearly, they operate as a mafia, just a highly incompetent mafia. Like their science.

If the reality is that as a result of having published a poor paper , taken this for granted , the editor feels he need to resign . If this was the norm there would be no one working on any journal for long as its not at all unusual . Indeed you could say the ‘Teams’ favorite journals should have the personnel turn over of a call center if this was the case . That he should cite the problem is the coverage other areas have given this paper, with these having nothing to do with this journal and making no claims to be peer reviewed but news organization, seems odder still.
What may get interesting is if the paper reviewers get involved, if one or all of them call Wagner out over this and demand to be told what was wrong with their review or in what way they where not suitable to review the paper , it could get very nasty . Whose hopping that will be the case ?

@Joe Bastardi:
the agw army is stepping up their campaign to isolate, demonize and destroy any idea that runs contrary to their drumbeat of bologna that their lemmings march to.
——-
True. But I relish the fact that the agw army will climb out of the their trenches and go over the top (in every sense of the phrase) because they will be easy targets on open ground. And now as General Obama starts to waver on his green plan, this is likely their last real push—I see it akin to the Spring Offensive of 1918 that led to the collapse of Germany. Bayonet fixed.

Follow the money – the journal is published in Basel, Switzerland. The University of Basel isn’t exactly an bastion of anti-warmist sentiments. Check out how much money the Swiss Chemical industry contributes to “green” causes, and the path is pretty clear.

I don’t know how a person could reach any of these conclusions. Spencer and Braswell’s paper(s) (not just the last one) clearly spells out what is wrong with other methods and why other researchers reach erroneous conclusions. This was the PURPOSE of the paper! I admit I had to read it more than twice, but once you get your arms around what they are describing, it is quite clear to me that they are using a good approach at analyzing the data, and it is a very convincing argument that the other (mainstream) researchers conclusions are grossly exaggerating feedbacks to the + side.

I agree with Spencer on this one. If you have an argument, bring it on!
It’s a good thing this guy resigned, he’s chained to the rails of the Titanic.

I think skeptics should be grateful that the thorough corruption of the peer review process is so open and easy to see in climate science today; just be advised, it is not limited to climate science, and it is indeed a fundamental problem, pointing to an across-the-board failure of modern physical science, particularly the earth and life sciences. I remember Dr. Spencer specifically announced some time ago he was only going to be using the peer-review system, and not blog sites, to press and defend his work; now all can see what it has gotten him, and no one at this late date should be surprised. No one, even skeptics (even Dr. Spencer), is listening to anyone they don’t want to listen to — there is no scientific debate on climate science, it is all a lot of on/off switching of attention, according to one’s biases and pet theories. The result is a complete lack of focus upon the definitive evidence, which I have brought forward, and which no one on either side of the debate wants to admit. So it is not just a fraudulent gang in climate science; it is the prevalence of dogmatic bias on both sides of every debate today, against a background of general incompetence rampant among all scientists. The reigning scientific paradigm is failing, apparently inexorably. And I know most of you don’t want to hear that, but it is the unvarnished truth.

The former-editor sounds kind of wussy. Resigning because of a little heat? If he thinks that the final answer everybody agrees with is all that’s worthy enough to be published, he was not editing a journal. My guess is that the Journal will now go so plain-vanilla worrying about reactions that it loses readership.

“The problem brought to my attention by the “team” is that the paper didn’t meet their majority view. It kicked against the pricks of consensus. It offered a scientific observation that did not agree with their models and that really angered them. Then the media really rubbed it under nose. Boy did the excrement hit the fan for letting this paper see the light of day! Of course, I was reminded that models trump observation in all cases where climate grant funding is involved. Silly me to forget, leaving that point to be missed in our review process. Just as Pharoah Horemheb struck the name of Akhenaten from obelisks and records of history for insulting the gods, I too face a similar fate, relatively speaking. This regrettably brought me to the decision to quit before they have me fired. Perhaps in doing so, I shall redeem my career somehow but obviously not as a journal editor. Everybody took this so seriously.”

Hank has this right. The journal editor, Wolfgang, is giving the world information to use against the CAGW-thugs who used the immoral and unprofessional techniques described by Wolfgang. The thugs succeeded in pressuring Wolfgang and he is resigning rather than retracting the article. Wolfgang has given the world wonderful ammunition to use against the CAGW-thugs. I believe that he is advertising his willingness to testify before Congress. Surely, this matter must cause a Congressional investigation. If you happen to live in the district of a Congressman who has expressed a criticism of CAGW then call him, tell him about Wolfgang’s letter, and tell him to act.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

Religion. In Islam they have honor killings. The honor of the male has been violated.

This pal has had his religion violated. He doesn’t have the tools to cope with it. His pretend outrage is a little too dramatic. The real reason could have been industry or board member pressure and he does this story to save face.

I wonder if Ben threatened to ‘beat the crap out of him’ if he didn’t resign?
…………
Economic Geologist says:
September 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm

glacierman beat me to it. I’d like to know who he got phone calls and emails from since publishing this paper. But this is probably not FOIA’able. Too bad.

I suspect that the journal (one that is just getting started) received many subscription cancellations and cancellation-threats from college libraries and warmists, and the editor resigned to head them off and keep his publication afloat.

Apparently according to Richard Black of the BBC, white males from the Bible Belt should not be allowed to publish in scientific journals, especially if they attack other faith based belief systems such as CAGW.

As he notes about Dr Spencer “an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an evangelical Christian organisation that claims policies to curb climate change “would destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs” and “could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life”.”

davidmhoffer: right on the button. I agree with your analysis. I see this as a more carefully worded resignation than some are seeing. The contradictions are deliberate. He is saying that he did his job, the respected peer reviewers did theirs, but that he is being forced to deny this fact by agencies or persons beyond his control. His response is to resign rather than retract what he sees as a perfectly justifiable publication of Spencers Observations.

This is the most likely analysis of this letter. The contradictions, the teeth gritting criticisms and the visible pain in the words says it all. Been there, done it, got the tee shirt.
I think he was told to go with the promise of a career to follow OR stay with no prospects. The hope of the inquisition was that his resignation would ACT like a retraction even though no retraction has been made.

If the paper (and process) was as flawed as the Editor claims he should have been (and would have been justified), retracted the paper. That was not done. This is nothing more but a weak and transparent attempt to denigrate and demean an admittedly properly peer reviewed paper – primarily because it was favorably received

Jay says: September 2, 2011 at 12:45 pm
[..when the material was only marginally related to the area where the journal and review panel had expertise]

Were the sensors working correctly?
Were the sensors sensing what they were designed to sense?
Was the data collected correctly?
Was the data collected presented as observed data?
Were the sensors local or remote?

I read this entirely differently: “extremist warmist editor can’t stand not getting his own way so throws a tantrum issues resignation note expecting a massive cry of horror and demands such an important man should come back”.

2 Sept: Forbes: Peter Gleick: Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is “Fundamentally Flawed,” Editor Resigns, Apologizes
There is a famous saying in science: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In this case, the arguments for climate change are backed up by such an astounding degree of science and evidence, that one, or even a few, papers that claim to refute the science of climate change deserve careful scrutiny…
The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models…http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/

“If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Wolfgang Wagner appears to have fallen on his sword because he couldn’t stand the disapproval of many in the “climate community” rather than as an act of contrition for “mishandling” the peer review process. If peppering a peer review panel with known opponents of the author’s fundamental scientific direction were a routine requirement, a high percentage of published pro-AGW papers would never have seen the light of day.

It sounds like the editor took a bullet for you. I can think of no other explanation why he would resign over a paper but not retract it. I could see him retracting the paper and then resigning over the hoopla. I could see a very honorable man retracting the paper and then resigning immediately (This sort of thing is sometimes done by military men who put the lives of their people in jeoapardy).

However, the only way I can see this occurring is that someone of power said “the paper goes or you go” and Wagner stuck by his principles. Moreso, he resigned in a very open and public way clearly stating that it was over this paper while giving blatantly nonsensical reasons as to why it was unacceptable. It seems slightly reminiscent of Mark Antony’s speech in Julius Casear where he does not praise Caesar or blame Brutus

I quote
“The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is””

HankH says:
September 2, 2011 at 11:43 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Not surprising since Akhenaten was a real heretic challenging the world order; the first recorded person in history to believe in one god rather than the multitude favoured by most (to explain the workings of the world).

One should always be very comcerned and on ones guard when one sees revisiomists re writing history; remind anyone of the disappearing MWP.

“The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard”

Yep, you sure don’t want them reviewing for your Journal. No wonder he resigned.
/sarcasm.

Wagner: “But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists.
Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of
where and why models deviate from satellite data.”

This is unbelievable! Why should remote sensing scientists or any scientist presenting a paper on interpretation of hard data have to cooperate with modelers to determine why and where models deviate from the data? Surely it is up to modelers to deal with deviation from data. This whole science has become a playschool complete with bullies – I hope it doesn’t go too far beyond climate science. I predict as the synod unravels, there will be mass resignations from most scientific journals.

“…the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors…”
All I had to see was the word “notions” used to denigrate AGW skepticism, to understand where Dr. Wagner’s loyalties are.
When all is said and done, it is the perversion of the peer review process that will be the undoing of the entire field of “climate science”.

Come on guys, wake up. All scientific journals are owned by the same people who own all TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. Wagner was just fired by his bosses, after first accepting the paper for good scientific reasons. The excuse he now offers is just a whitewash for his bosses who drive AGW everywhere.
Could all the journals’ biases in peer review originate from the wishes of their bosses? Think about it. The circle is closed.

At times I think the existence if Richard Black blog is a useful didactic for the entire AGW hypothesis. He is a single issue lobbyist with no pretension to impartiality, his platform is on a state run broadcaster, the BBC. This state run broadcaster is controlled by government appointment. This state run broadcaster boasts its own impartiality while following a distinctly biased agenda. Indeed you could add that this state run broadcaster is shaping public opinion at the state’s behest. People feel assured by the impartiality of the state run broadcaster therefore do not question AGW. The people who rely on the state run broadcaster are denied any information which contradicts AGW. And the Richard Black blog, in his lobbyist platform, smears any anti-AGW position, but when doing so it will be the first time the people will have encountered that view, thereby reinforcing the the BBC, ahem, the State’s view. Just imagine Winston Smith denying all his thoughts in a new tool called the BBC blog…

If people want to understand climate science they should not bother reading any science but should read George Orwell’s 1984, cause it is happening before our eyes.

It occurred to me that if people want to understand wind farms they should just see it as a transfer of wealth. Because that is all they are!!!

You knew where you stood 500 years ago with science and the catholic church .. no longer it seems

Andy
_______________________
In my view, there has been a role- reversal. The AGW community in support of the IPCC position has assumed the role of the Church vis a vis Galileo’s troubles. Anyone with viewpoint not aligned with the orthodoxy is subject to the fury of the new church of AGW.

_____________________

Luther,

I don’t think the Church expressed any “fury” towards Galileo, in spite of his obnoxious insistence that his partially correct theories were without error.

I think there are better analogies to be made vis a vis adherence to the AGW religion, than the tired Church versus Galileo myth.

Most people also have a misconception of the relationship between Galileo and the Church. According to the leading Galileo scholar Stillman Drake, Galileo was a “Roman Catholic zealot,” whose problems with the Inquisition were due ENTIRELY to university professors of physics (natural philosophy) who were manipulating the Inquisition, rather than to theologians. See Drake’s book Galileo: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press). Galileo was convicted only because he pleaded guilty to the charge against him, even though he was innocent of the heresy charges, and had a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine (a SAINT no less!) proving his innocence. Read Drake for details, in particular for a conjecture on why the innocent Galileo pleaded guilty. Urban VIII told the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican during Galileo’s trial that he (the Pope) was Galileo’s friend who was trying to protect him (Drake again).

The true parallels between Galileo and people like Anthony, Spencer, and Singer, are obvious. Perhaps Wagner also, as several commentators have suggested.

Finally, most people have a misconception of the Flat Earth Hypothesis. No educated person in Europe at least since Aristotle (384-322 BC) has believed in a flat Earth. See Thomas S. Kuhn’s book The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought (Harvard University Press) for a discussion. The claim that in ancient times (after the beginning of the Christian era), people believed in a flat Earth, is a myth invented in the 19th century. The Wikipedia article on the history of the Flat Earth Myth is fairly accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Anyone who calls anyone a “flat Earther” is thereby demonstrating himself to be a “flat Earther,” which is to say, an ignoramus.

“I don’t think the Church expressed any “fury” towards Galileo, in spite of his obnoxious insistence that his partially correct theories were without error.”

Cardinal Bellarmine, who would become Pope, told the Inquisitors that they could show Galileo the instruments of torture but not use them. He was placed under house arrest without medical care and forbidden to practice science. That is pretty damn tough, maybe furious.

But this is not the place to debate this matter. As much as I favor discussion of religion, this very important post is not a place to re-fight the Galileo wars.

Remote Sensing Editor-in-Chief Wolfgang Wagner has resigned, ostensibly because “…the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors…”

Well…. put him in a sundress and call him ‘Suzy’! He really DID screw up didn’t he?! He failed to stack the review committee with AGW proponents and some science crept in to the Remote Sensing journal. Oh, the HORRORS! For dereliction of duty, off with his Editor In Cheat head!!! /sarc

From my little knot hole, this looks like a ‘win-win’ situation to me…..

There is some extra news coming out over this. From Retraction Watch that presents some additional insight with this discussion.

In Geophysical Research Letters there WILL be a refutation by Prof Andrew Dressler of the Spencer-Braswell paper next week.

As Geophysical Research Letters did not publish the paper initially, they don’t need to give Spencer and Braswell the last word (a rebuttal).

As Remove Sensing now says the Spencer-Braswell paper is a bad paper (but did not retract it) either Remove Sensing will deny Spencer and Braswell a response to “criticism” from Geophysical Research Letters or allow a limited response under a disclaimer that Remote Sensing says this is a bad paper or some such.

“Also, if Spencer and Braswell “essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents”, they would be clearly (and easily) refuted in a Comment in Remote Sensing. This would be an embarrassment to Spencer and Braswell, but that is how the scientific method works.”

The normal procedure would be for some Warmista to publish a comment in Remote Sensing. Warmista are anything but normal and anything but scientifc. Check out Pielke’s essay. It is good.

A “resignation” certainly gets one’s attention. But, it was an overly drastic action, in this case. Heck, if you think you made a mistake (as we all do occasionally), you own up to it and promise to do better next time.

At best, maybe he was “tired” of being editor. This was an “opportunity”. At worst, it makes the pro-AGW movement even more suspect as a “racket” that uses “muscle” to “punish” transgressions rather than ” objective science” to “edify” the ignorant.

Might have known that Richard Black would leap on this with a complete train-wreck of an article for the BBC (note, it’s not his blog, but the lead story in the Science/Environment section of the BBC website).

Something else that speaks volumes: any story on the BBC site has a “Related Articles” section, linking to similar, connected, or back-story articles. There is no article on the release of the original paper.

Of course, the usual suspects (in this and other fields) don’t see this as being an own-goal, because they have that peculiar mental illness known as doublethink. In their minds, everything their opponents do is unacceptable because their views, opinions or just facts presented by them are plain wrong. On the other hand, any manipulation, deceit, stonewalling, cover-up or out-and-out lie is completely justified by being right. In fact, it’s not even that it’s justified; they see it as normal.

Something is very wrong here.
Not only is every single one of Wagner’s points incredibly wrong, ( eg. He complains about the ” exaggeration of the paper in the media” yet he has no problem with left-wing MSM constantly bombarding us with nonfactual information supporting AGW,) but the whole letter is written in such a style that to someone like me, ( who has personally been involved in investigations in determining credibility and motive, as a result of my occupation in law enforcement,) that I’m fairly confident that the entire letter, and subsequent resignation has been STAGED.

“Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the
review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”

Ha! The were no errors with the review proecess, therefore there must have been errors with the reviewers! For not holding to the Dogma! Heretics!

I am reminded of the early days of Christianity, after it had gained ascendency – the countless meetings of the high and mighty to declare the dogma and the anathema. On a more modern note, I am reminded of Lysenko and his academic aparatchiks.

Innocent magazine editor (the editor, not the magazine) publishes Anathema; he is brought down by the Dogmatics and forced to recant. By doing so, he is allowed to keep A job, and probably continue to receive the mercey of Funding. No other scientific journal will now dare publish Spencer again. QED. Mission Accomplished.

Felton: “Something is very wrong here … I’m fairly confident that the entire letter, and subsequent resignation has been STAGED.”

Eggscellent observation.

It is an act. There was an American pilot captured by the North Vietnamese. They used him for a propaganda film. He participated, but tricked his masters by communicating the word “torture” in morse code using his eyelids.

Here, the good editor, under the forces at one side cultic, another very dependent on money, had to take the fall. To much money goes to NASA and other rent takers. The resignation letter is brilliant (I think!). He uses the typical calumny and illogic of standard warmist agit-prop, yet communicates through it, to the aware public, that something is not straightforward with the story,that there is a subtext to be examined. A brilliant subversion of warmist sentimentalities and self-money-serving reasoning. When the AGW bubble finally bursts in the future and he applies for a job or grant and is asked about the resignation business he can joke, “hey, don’t you see what I was really saying?”

Hmm, curious. Seems to me after having done some research that Dr. Wagner is heading up what could be called a “new” scientific journal. As it has yet to establish itself in the scientific community, it has a fragil place in getting and publishing papers, especially anything that tries to contradict the dominant paradigm in any given field (in climatology, it is the Greenhouse Paradigm). As such, having published a controversial paper by a skeptic with a well known streak for going against the mainstream (not a knock on Spencer, but he is not part of the IPCC mainstream) and having recieved the full criticism from the non-silent majority, he sought to direct the lightning elsewhere so that his “baby” would not be so ridiculed as to be snuffed out of the peer review process before it even had a chance to get in. Heck, even the established journals have a hard time after these sorts of debacles (Journal of Climate, anyone?). I don’t think it is political (he doesn’t seem to be a strong alarmist about AGW) nor do I think he seriously dislikes S&B2011. He is afraid that if he stands by them even in the face of the ever growing criticisms (whether true or not by the likes of Trenberth, Abraham, Bickmore, ect) that the journal will suffer. It may not be the most brave and intrepid stance he could (or should) have taken, but it is what he opted for, given the real world and its various shortcomings. This probably isn’t an IPCC-run conspiracy, it is a sociologically (psychologically?) predicted outcome within the broader sociopolitical realm of science. The best thing Spencer can do is to continue to make his claims and defend them the best he can. It may be unfair, but the world is unjust – are we really at all surprised?

“This is truly bizarre, and just shows how profoundly warped the climate science community has become. I make no judgement here on the correctness of the paper, but editors just don’t resign because of things like this.

Nobody resigned at Science when they published that utter drivel about bacteria replacing phosphorus with arsenic; they just published seven comments (IIRC) back to back with a rather desperate defence from the original authors.

Nobody resigned at Phys Rev Lett when I trashed a paper (on the evaluation of Gaussian sums) they had selected as one of the leading papers of the month: indeed nobody has formally ever accepted that I was right, but remarkably all the later papers on this subject follow my line.

I have been up to my neck for over a year in a huge row with Iannis Kominis about the underlying quantum mechanics of spin sensing chemical reactions, and either his papers or mine (or just possibly both) are complete nonsense: but nobody has resigned over Koniminis’s paper in Phys Rev B or mine in Chem Phys Lett.

Sure, my two controversies above never hit the popular press, but the arsenic stuff was discussed all over the place, far more than Spencer and Braswell.

The arm twisting will have been to try to force Wagner to retract the paper.
By resigning, he has ensured the paper will not be retracted, but instead will gain more publicity and the alarmists are painted into a corner where they have to attempt a rebuttal of the science Spencer and Braswell have presented.

Does anybody else consider it improper for an editor-in-chief to even mention MSM reaction in a resignation statement? Am I “out there” on that?

It seems very telling to me. FWIW, my opinion is that Mr. Wagner is not in The Team’s good graces right now. I think that comments along the line of “he’ll probably now have a cushy job in the IPCC” miss the mark. I read this resignation as a mea culpa for crimes against The Cause: I screwed up allowing this paper to be published, the resulting bad press is my fault, and now I’m falling on my sword as is my duty.

A minority view……a large body of work that disagrees………exaggerated by the media…….passed review by like minded reviwers….

He is surely talking about the “hockey stick” right?

Every single issue he has applies perfectly to the publishing of the hockey stick. Perfectly!

But lets be honest, he only resigned because he wanted to slap the paper with negative press and he was pretty sure he couldn’t get the paper retracted. It is a well planned move to give the media something negative to say about the paper without actually having to come up with any real science to back it up.

These clowns are reaching a level of ridiculous that is becoming delusional. There is probably a youtube clip of this guy yelling
BULLS—T over and over.

Obviously M. Wagner doesn’t really know the complexity (refinement) of the “scientific basis” of the “consensus” about AGW or he did not carefully read the Roy Spencer’s article. Poor Bishop Wangner, you are a really nut. By your auto-exclusion, you wins the Darwin’s Price of the year (2011)…

So Spencer is castigated for not citing the activist high priest Trenberth? It would be curious to observe how many times Trenberth cites Spencer in his (automatically peer-review rubber stamped) papers.

A lot of people are condemning Wagner, and not without cause. But I’d like to offer an alternative scenario for consideration.

The journal is a relatively new one, hoping to make its reputation and get in the big indexes so it’s “impact” goes up. Journals are businesses, with an eye on the profits.

So maybe the editor publishes it for good scientific reasons – which he points out by saying it passed the normal peer-review – but all of a sudden they find themselves at the centre of the global warming political storm, with angry, semi-deranged letters flooding in condemning them for publishing it, and big names in science rubishing the journal. No doubt it’s the sort of thing that will come up in the decision to promote the journal (or not) up the impact ladder. No doubt it’s the sort of thing that already has – somebody having a word in somebody else’s ear, suggesting that it’s a problem. The process may have been followed to the letter, but nevertheless it is hurting the business.

The editor agrees to act as scapegoat and resign, penning a grovelling apology to try to mollify the attackers, in the hopes of defusing the threat to the journals ambitions. Wagner possibly knows it was the right decision to publish (he must have thought about it, at the time), and that the objections to publishing the paper are scientifically invalid, but business comes first, and as an employee his first duty is to his employers profits.

It’s clear he’s not a warmist – or he’d never have published it, and he doesn’t take a position in his letter. It’s clear he got these arguments from somewhere else since publication – he didn’t come up with them on his own. I think the most likely place for him to have got them is quoting the letters of protest, which the journal is caving in to. Whether he is persuaded of their validity or not – and there are hints in the letter that he might not be – is an open question.

As far as I can see this research is very comparable with Spencer, but is chalk and cheese in quality, but of course by the standard being applied by this editor it would have been utterly condemned by the warmists not trumpeted from the rooftops.

“Does anybody else consider it improper for an editor-in-chief to even mention MSM reaction in a resignation statement? Am I “out there” on that?”

It is shocking! It is completely inappropriate. It is like mentioning that the author of a paper is one bodacious babe.

I think that the editor was beaten over the head by the Warmista. He published his complaints in his resignation letter. He saw no choice but to resign. As Pielke, Sr., has pointed out, the correct response would have been to publish some critical comments from some Warmista. But it is likely that the Warmista do not want to publish comments; rather, they insisted on retraction. In other words, they would settle for nothing less than smashing Spencer.

No. The editor’s main reason is not as suggested here by the author. The main reason is cleary stated rather at the top of the explanaition, where one would expect it. It says the following:

“Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.”

So the main reason is that a bad paper had slipped through, for which the editor assumed responsibility.

Beautiful! Nice to see a comment about Galileo and the Catholic Church by someone who has actually taken the time to acquaint himself with the history.

I wish I had an insight to add re this appalling resignation. All I can do at this point is to marvel at the breadth of insight as to motives provided here – especially those of Theo Goodwin and Hank H, who see Wolfgang Wagner’s resignation as being forced. Floor Anthoni also probably has a point about pressure coming from wealthy and powerful publishers, who want to preserve their stakes in this crooked global warming scheme.

“What sort of weird warped world to climate scientists inhabit?
How have they allowed themselves to move so far from comon sense?
What is wrong with these guys?”

Well, it is a pure power struggle and they are going to keep some papers from being published, or get them retracted, even if they have to redefine “peer review.” Some are money hungry, but most are the standard issue power hungry socialists and communists from faculty lounges all over the world. They are desperate. They cannot allow themselves to be forced into a discussion of scientific method because that would collapse their house of cards. Spencer’s work is so threatening because he presents pristine data that conflicts with the models. They are trapped in a discussion of scientific method. They have to destroy the paper.

I just downloaded the paper. Haven’t read anything but the abstract yet, but what I did read aligns with my own view of the issue: if the sensitivity question was resolved, the debate would be settled.

The current climate peer review system is as corrupt as anything in government. A self-selected, self-serving clique of grant-sucking charlatans have set themselves up as the gatekeepers of what gets published, and woe betide anyone who allows a skeptic’s paper to be published – as the editor-in-cheif found out. The only exceptions are climatologists at the pinnacle of their carreers like MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen, who at 70 and with hundreds of publications to his credit, is difficult for the Team to keep out. Not that they don’t still try.

Dr Spencer gets tremendous credit for his persistence. And going by his abstract, he has exposed a glaring weakness in climate alarmism. No wonder they’re upset.

…with no supporting statement as reason to refute Spencer and Braswell. By the looks of it, the Trenberth paper was written to refute Lindzen and Choi’s earlier paper where they only considered data from the tropics. The Trenberth paper specifically says “This paper explores the meaning of results that use only the tropical region.”

Now unless I’m missing something, that paper seems pretty much irrelevent to the Spencer and Braswell paper and if it is relevent, there ought to be some very specific reason stated as to why.

Wolfgang’s logic is all wrong about whether Spencer and Braswell need to take into account previous mainstream results because that is precisely what they’re refuting themselves.

Pielke said it best when he said “The ultimate arbitrator of the Spencer and Braswell analysis and conclusions will be in the peer-reviewed literature not on weblogs, or whether or not the Chief Editor of a journal decides to resign over a paper.”

Disko Troop says: “davidmhoffer: right on the button. I agree with your analysis. I see this as a more carefully worded resignation than some are seeing. The contradictions are deliberate. He is saying that he did his job, the respected peer reviewers did theirs, but that he is being forced to deny this fact by agencies or persons beyond his control.

You’re trying to make sense out of something that makes no sense, and you may be right. The letter is total gibberish, a veritable dog’s breakfast of illogic. Wagner may have been made “an offer he couldn’t refuse,” and reacted the only way he dared. But there’s also the possibility that the nonsensical nature of the resignation instead reflects the fact that Wagner’s enemies edited it.

From the resignation letter: “…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view…but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents…

But at the relevant point in the publication process, the only thing that is supposed to matter is the opinion of the reviewers. Imposing a post facto requirement of obeisance to the very arguments the paper was “essentially” intended to analyze is ludicrous.

[15] The tropical SST time series lags Niño 3.4 SSTs by a few months, is correlated 0.71 at zero lag [Trenberth et al., 2002b] and exhibits about 22% of its amplitude (the standard deviations of tropical SST is 0.21°C and for the Niño 3.4 region 0.95°C). Trenberth et al.’s [2002b] correlations between global mean temperature and Niño3.4 SST for 1950 to 1998 were 0.53 with global temperatures lagging by 3 months.

The dominant interannual variations in TOA radiative fluxes in the tropics occur with ENSO, which involves a buildup of heat during La Niña and a discharge of heat during El Niño [Trenberth et al., 2002a, 2002b].

During El Niño, the warming of the tropical eastern Pacific and associated changes in the Walker circulation, atmospheric stability, and winds lead to decreases in stratocumulus clouds, increased solar radiation at the surface,

Murphy et al. [2009] address changes in the energy budget with surface temperatures for a much larger domain and present a much more complete analysis and discussion of issues, and show that recent observed variability indeed supports a positive shortwave cloud feedback.

correlations between global mean temperature and Niño3.4 SST for 1950 to 1998 were 0.53 with global temperatures lagging by 3 months.

“I don’t think the Church expressed any “fury” towards Galileo, in spite of his obnoxious insistence that his partially correct theories were without error.”

Cardinal Bellarmine, who would become Pope, told the Inquisitors that they could show Galileo the instruments of torture but not use them. He was placed under house arrest without medical care and forbidden to practice science. That is pretty damn tough, maybe furious.

“After a period with the friendly Ascanio Piccolomini (the Archbishop of Siena), Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence in 1634, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. Galileo was ordered to read the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. However his daughter Maria Celeste relieved him of the burden after securing ecclesiastical permission to take it upon herself.[55] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials. This book has received high praise from Albert Einstein.[56] As a result of this work, Galileo is often called the “father of modern physics”. He went completely blind in 1638 and was suffering from a painful hernia and insomnia, so he was permitted to travel to Florence for medical advice.[57][58]”

The editor should not have resigned. It it not up to the editor to accept or reject papers, that is the job of the reviewers and if they said accept, then so be it.

As for the quality or otherwise of the paper itself, the decision on that will be provided by peer review in its proper sense, not newspaper articles and blogs. By “peer review” I mean what happens after publication – too often the phrase is used just to describe the process of getting published, but that is actually the start of peer review not the finish – it is what other workers in the same field say of the paper that ultimately matters, and can sometimes take years to work through.

I can guarantee that Dessler’s upcoming paper in Geophysical Research Letters (appears to be “Are clouds causing climate change?”) will contain enough twists and turns of the data that you will not be able to see what was really done or that the data actually shows the opposite effect.

Let’s get our teeth into it when it comes out because he has been given a free pass so far.

We owe this to Dr. Spencer and to all the editors out there who are even more afraid today to publish skeptical papers because their jobs are on the line.

“…the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”

The operative phrase is “who probably share”

So, the editor resigned not because of something he knows to be a fact, but because of something that he believes might be true. It might be true, it might not. So rather than make sure of the facts, he resigned.

Modern science in action. Act on what you believe, rather than investigate to determine the facts. Once upon a time that was called superstition.

So, warminsts have actually started doing science (experimentation, replication), now. I wasn’t aware of this. Up until now it has just been models and gang-repudiation of any actual data refuting the models.

The simple fact backing up a skeptical position is that the climate is only warming at less the half the rate that is predicted in the theory (even including a number of unsubstantiated negative forcings such as aerosols).

There is very little warming in the tropics and especially in the tropics troposphere where the effect is supposed to be easy to detect by now.

Where is the warming?

Make editors resign. Publish a thousand its worse than we thought articles. Show me the fracking warming and all these feedbacks that are supposed to be there instead and then there is no debate. Its just not there (or, more accurately, only a small fraction of it is).

Your paper was deemed flawed and not worthy of publication by the editor of Remote Sensing.

He felt “Remote Sensing”‘s error was so egregious in accepting your paper for publication, that he should take the unusual step of resigning.

If your paper was scientifically flawed, please don’t be so defensive about it. If your scientific research is robust and worthy of publication, prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals should be happy to publish them.

I seriously doubt there is some global conspiracy or vast cabal of scientists who are out to make your research look sub-par. It is simply not professional or mature to complain about some vast global cabal out to get you. That’s not even worthy of serious consideration.

Some people are speculating rather too wildly about Wagner’s motivations. For example suggesting that he fell on his sword for accepting the article. Please don’t speculate like that, without some evidence.

Perhaps Wagner fought long and hard to get the journal to retract the article, but the editorial board would not permit that. So he had to go.

Perhaps the journal’s owners are realising that their readers tend to be sceptical of the AGW position (being hard physicists) and find themselves in a tough position: they want to be taken seriously by all in the climate fraternity, but cannot retract without pissing off half their punters so they will not retract (or even publish rebuttal) leaving Wagner the door.

Looks like the overpaid government-funded climate thugs have struck again. I really don’t care any more – climate science has been soiled by “the team” and will never again be taken seriously by the public. I just hope we have enough sense to chop off the funding before these people can waste more of our tax dollars…

Not to worry, you have made it inside their wire, now that your in you in fact have them surrounded from the inside with facts. Retreat now by them will not help as the facts will expand in all directions as they attempt to flee.

Someone here suggested that this has all the hallmarks of a staged event, considering the speed with with the Guardian and BBC were able to publish articles on it. It seems logical. I Know the Europeans don’t really understand us and we certainly don’t understand them but they’ve got to realize the next election in the US might usher in Republican control of both houses of congress and if a Republican president gets elected, it will likely be with the enthusiastic support of Christian evangelicals. Shenanigans like these are more likely to make doubters of the consensus climate science into despisers. That’s not a smart position to put yourself when budget cutting will most likely define the next congress as opposed to spending.

The biggest problem with any peer review system is that it is intrinsically censorious. It’s used in academic disciplines that can’t complete the third leg of the scientific method stool – physical experiment. In this case the physical experiment is replaced with rhetorical experiment, and he who convinces the majority, the peers, wins the argument.

However this is not science, and this lamentable state of affairs started decades ago when the West’s education systems started the deleterious process of in course assessment and expected students in the social sciences to do hard physical science subjects. No prizes for guessing which subjects those gravitated to – human geography in which climate science could be associated with.

Peer review in the physical sciences is about ensuring no plagiarism occurs, otherwise the hypothesis is tested by physical experiment from which there is no argument – it passes or fails, no ifs or buts.

“The political views of the authors and the thematic goal of their study did, of course, alone not
disqualify the paper from entering the review process in the journal Remote Sensing. As I stated in my editorial at the launch of this new open access journal [6] one of the premier goals of remote sensing as a discipline is to better understand physical and biological processes on our planet Earth. The use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models is therefore a very important part of our work. But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists. Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data. Only through this close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into account.”

He is insinuating that he was criticized for allowing in a skeptic paper and for not “coordinating” with the modelers. This must really hurt, as he seems to be suggesting that satellite data cannot be discussed on its own–the very antithesis of stated purpose of the journal above. He is signalling, I think, a willingness to blow the whistle and get the whole episode off his chest. That’s my read. Perhaps Anthony or Steve McIntyre should give him a call or pay him a visit–he may have a story he wants to tell.

“Your paper was deemed flawed and not worthy of publication by the editor of Remote Sensing.
He felt “Remote Sensing”‘s error was so egregious in accepting your paper for publication, that he should take the unusual step of resigning. ”

* * *

Peter, I’m afraid you’re not looking at the story with a critical eye, and are just taking it as face-value. Whether this is intentional or accidentally, only you know the truth to it.
Not only did Wagner contradict himself several times in his resignation letter, but his arguments offered within for said resignation are strawmen, and paltry ones at that.

Several studies over the years have proven to be ” not worthy of publication” ( Mann’s hockey stick being one of the best examples) yet you never saw any editors resigning after it was proved he forgot entire periods.

You also fail to mention, ( purposely?) that the resignation letter specifically references a paper by Trernberth et al , with Trernberth being famous for wanting to ” re-define peer review.” Add the fact that the paper referenced has nothing to do with the Spencer-Braswell paper, ( presumbly, since it came out a while ago, and seems to be a rebuttal to Lindzen and Choi’s paper), and you have not only a perplexing paper, but a misleading one as well.

The world is best viewed with open eyes, Peter. ( If you want to open them, anyway.)

I am curious at what point the scientific community will standup for the scientific process. It is ironical that those in the climate community have not thought through the implications of negative feedback, the solar cycle 24 Maunder minimum, and the validation of Svensmark’s mechanism. The planet will cool. Sea level is falling. Another La Nina. The late 20th century warming is over.

Planetary cooling, followed by a Republican president with a Republican congress. Likely there will a couple of changes in government funded climate research.

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications

We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1oC (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5oC to 5oC and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth.

The discovery, published this week in Science, has led to a reformulation of the mathematical laws that predict the path of a ray of light bouncing off a surface or traveling from one medium into another—for example, from air into glass.

I guess he’d best hop right on letting the physics community know to ignore this new research and stop re-writin’ them thar laws, because this paper overturns a boatload of existing studies!

I do not believe, nor is there any substantive evidence, that a global conspiracy of scientists faked data to fool the world public (ClimateGate), nor to I believe there is a vast, worldwide cabal of scientists who are out to get Mr. Spencer.

I don’t believe conspiracy theories. It’s not science. I might as well believe the conspiracy theories of Birthers and 9/11 truthers.

There’s is not vast global cabal of lying scientists who are perpetrating a hoax, or working furiously to “get” Mr. Spenser. That’s tin foil hat stuff.

Occam’s Razor is something I put a lot of weight in. Roy Spencer’s paper was deemed flawed and not worthy of publication because it was probably just that….flawed and not worthy. “Remote Sensing” is not even a top notch, prestigious science journal that deals with climate. If Mr. Spencer can’t get a legitimate paper published there that stands on its on, his credibility and competence as a top notch climate change expert is highly suspect. And its ridiculous when anyone who complains that people are out to get him. That’s an excuse children use.

Occam’s Razor is something I put a lot of weight in. Roy Spencer’s paper was deemed flawed and not worthy of publication because it was probably just that….flawed and not worthy. “Remote Sensing” is not even a top notch, prestigious science journal that deals with climate. If Mr. Spencer can’t get a legitimate paper published there that stands on its on, his credibility and competence as a top notch climate change expert is highly suspect. And its ridiculous when anyone who complains that people are out to get him. That’s an excuse children use.

I’m surprised your comment didn’t get snipped for being completely OT–that’s how far from reality you are on this one, peter stone.

Fess up–you’re just carrying water for a person or organization that wants to completely obfuscate and deviate from the real issue at hand here. That, sir, is tragically transparent. But you’re free to put your name on whatever you want to write–nobody else here has to sleep on the consequences but you.

Peter Stone said
“I do not believe, nor is there any substantive evidence, that a global conspiracy of scientists faked data to fool the world public (ClimateGate), nor to I believe there is a vast, worldwide cabal of scientists who are out to get Mr. Spencer.
* * *

I agree with you on this point. I’m not saying there is some worldwide conspiracy worthy of an X-Files episode, but I am saying that it is fairly evident, as shown by the actions of a few, that there are those at the top of the climate science food chain who are attempting to hijack and stifle intelligent debate and the basic fundamentals of science.
The actions of the CRU, and several others have proved that ” those that make the rules” ( when it comes to the IPCC anyway) that rational debate is not on their agenda.
You do make a good point about if Spencer’s paper is credible, then peer-review science will vindicate it, ( or condemn it), and it remains to be seen what the outcome will be. This is how science should be done.
Wagner’s resignation mentions a follow up paper, and I will be extremely interested to read it.
That being said, Wagner’s resignation and reasons for doing so, along with what else we know at this point, does not seem to be a simple matter of Wagner disagreeing with the paper and resigning over it.

I cannot fathom for the life of me gentlemen, how on God’s earth the gatekeepers of the Royal Antediluvian White Swan Society could possibly allow this clearly fake Black Swan into the Club and as a result I’m tendering my resignation as Chief Chookchaser before all the white feathers start rolling up in the post. I need a complete rest from all this controversy and so my good Lady and I will shortly be undertaking a long therapeutic sea voyage to Perth in the Antipodes to get away from it all. I wish you all God speed.

Wagner states “But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three
reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors”

Apart from the obvious comment that reviewers sharing the alarmist views of authors has never presented any apparent problem – indeed, it is deemed essential by Jones, Trenberth et al – the proposition that, by random chance the editors may have selected 3 sceptics strongly contradicts the widely circulated claim that 97% of climate scientists agree with CAGW. Surely finding 3 sceptical scientists, and no alarmists, in a random (or any) sample of 3 should be next to impossible if only 3% of qualified scientists are “sceptics”

In between waves of nausea and disgust, I keep hearing the words of Phil Jones of the CRU climategate scandal (where he promises to keep out two research papers from the IPCC report):

“I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is,”

The team has certainly demonstrated their prowess and a willingness to subvert for ideological purpose. Only the agenda is important and the end justifies the means. Saving the planet justifies all atrocity. Soldiers of gaia, must crush the infidels and burn the heretics. To fail gaia is to fail god. Reality must conform to model output… (beep) Reality must conform to model output… (beep) Reality must conform to model output… (beep) Reality must conform to model output… GK

Mr. Wolfgang Wagner, the articulate former editor-in-chief of the journal Remote
Sensing just couldn’t/can’t/won’t find or share the words to describe or pinpoint
exactly where the Spenser & Braswell study went wrong.

He can’t and hasn’t faulted the NASA-collected remote sensor data or the database
encompassing that data.

He seems to be at a total loss to direct our individual and the scientific community’s
collective attention to what constituted the “fundamental technical errors” that
are buried so deep in Spenser & Braswell and which the three reviewers and the entireRemote Sensing editorial board allowed to slip by after the paper had been
revised as per the reviewers’ requests.

He can’t be bothered to advise the world on the specifics of what he alleges to be“false claims” within the Spenser & Braswell paper which he felt would
justify a retraction of the paper by either the journal or the authors. He can’t even
tell us where or how he found the “proof” he felt documented anyfalsification
in any single instance in data handling, statistical treatment or conclusions in the
Spenser & Braswell paper.

He leans heavily on what several unspecified non-peer reviewed blogs and bloggers
have written about Remote Sensing, the Spenser & Bradwell paper, or the authors,
or all in combination.

2011 A.D. seems to the year the vineyards of AGW orthodoxy have produced a great
deal of robust whine.

Persons such as Dr. Wolfgang Wagner seem destined to have their unfortified spirits
crushed and blended into the vat to create the public relations equivalent of MD 2020.
It’s popular in some places and among some segments of the public. For others,
many slighlty more discriminating palates, when AGW support is bottled and sold
this way it just leaves a nasty aftertaste.

Some people are speculating rather too wildly about Wagner’s motivations. For example suggesting that he fell on his sword for accepting the article. Please don’t speculate like that, without some evidence.

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

[My emboldened emphasis]

Mooloo also said:

Perhaps Wagner fought long and hard to get the journal to retract the article, but the editorial board would not permit that. So he had to go.

Erm, to use your own words, “[p]lease don’t speculate like that, without some evidence”.

Heh, your argument reminds me of the many that pronounced “plate tectonics” to be “crap”. Oh and it is Occams [sic] razor- Anthony

Actually, “Ockham” is the precedent version of the spelling, and is almost exclusively used in the area of England where the village is located. The village was known as Bocheham at the time of Domesday, and in some quarters for a time afterward as Hockham, but neither version is associated with the Razor. The spelling Occam is the most recent variant and the least relevant to the context, and for this reason I do not use it.

Yes, I mixed up the ‘h’ and the ‘a’, but given that is was about 3:00 am in my time zone when I typed that post it’s only puerile churlishness on the parts of those commenters who think that that typo has any bearing on anything.

But getting back to plate tectonics for a moment. My understanding was always that this theory was developed in the middle of the 20th century, when science had already tested and accepted elements of Wegener’s separate continental drift theory. Part of Wegener’s problem was that some of the mechanisms that he proposed – astronomical precession and “Polflucht” (quod vide) – were demonstrably wrong.

Interestingly it was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and a number of individual prominent geological types who most vociferously opposed Wegener. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same… Personally, I’m surprised that the geology discipline was so slow to investigate Wegener’s ideas, as there is nothing particularly amazing about the observation of the pattern of continental tessellation. Heck, even at the age of six and never having heard of continental drift, I used to look at my parents’ globe and wonder if all of the land masses used to fit together…

However, the comparison of the Wegener case with Spencer’s take on global warming is instructive. Spencer’s notions are akin to Wegener’s Polflucht speculations, which were quickly demonstrated as nonsense, and the final understanding of plate tectonics is similar to the current understanding of ‘greenhouse’ gas action, both of which were arrived at using decades of basic physics understanding and careful observation and experimentation.

As with the Galileo metaphor, the denialist camp is somewhat muddled in its revisionist interpretations of scientific history and progress.

The real problem for the editor was not the views of the referees but this:

“This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong. In science, diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.”

As far as the exagerration goes I had this to say on Andrew Bolt’s website using a screen name (real names are forbidden there)

Brian S replied to AS
Wed 27 Jul 11 (11:14am)
…As with yesterday’s section, it pays to read the actual paper rather than rely on the spin of the skeptic blog.

What this is about difficulty in determining the extent that feedback mechanisms play a part in temperature changes. The time lags discussed refer to this. The final sentence of the paper spells it out:

[O]ur central point, though: that the presence of time varying radiative forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback.

It is important to note that the entire context of the paper is that of transient forcings such as variations in cloud cover and ocean layer transfers which increase and decrease over time.

This is not a feature of greenhouse gas emissions.

The paper says nothing about how the magnitude if the temperature rise depends on these uncertainties. Indeed it is not even sure that the sensitivity will be lowered.

From the conclusion:

Thus, we must conclude that time-varying radiative forcing exists in the satellite observations, as evidenced by the radiative gain/loss couplet patterns seen in Figures 3 and 4. Diagnosis of feedback cannot easily be made in such situations

I don’t know how large the circulation is, but one would think a journal on remote sensing would be of interest to a very Very VERY technical readership with much stronger than average (even amongst scientists, let alone the general population) understanding of remote sensing instrumentation and the interpretation of the resulting data as it applies to the real world. These aren’t people designing curtain rods!

I wonder what THEY would have to say about the article itself. But I wonder still more about this:

How does the readership of Remote Sensing feel about being told that the data they collect from the instrumentation they design and test and put into production in real world scenarios is, according to the past editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, meaningless, unless in agreement with purely theoretical models? I’m certain the readership of Remote Sensing would be very surprised to learn that there is no point in them building sophisticated instrumentation to measure much of anything as the answers are already known via theoretical models.

This thing is so confusing that I’m not even sure if that last paragraph should have a /sarc at the end.

No. The editor’s main reason is not as suggested here by the author. The main reason is cleary stated rather at the top of the explanaition, where one would expect it…. So the main reason is that a bad paper had slipped through, for which the editor assumed responsibility.

Well, I’ve just gotta say that if a ‘bad paper’ happening to ‘slip through’ were any sort of justification for an editor in chief to take responsibility by resigning, there’d be a whole lotta turnover, a massive amount of The Peter Priciple at work, and very very rapidly few if any remaining candidates for editor in chief. Or worse – no one would be willing to retract even the rottenest of papers anymore. So I’m not buyin’ the ‘my bad, let me take reasonable responsibility by promptly resigning with a very public justification letter’ rational. Especially when one considers that problems with this paper didn’t even rise to the level of being retracted before the resignation.

See these recent articles on the escalating number of retracted science papers. An Aug 2011 Wall Street Journal article, http://tinyurl.com/3z5gthr notes:

Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters reveal.

Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide.

…”The stakes are so high,” said the Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton. “A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It’s your passport to success.”

Retractions related to fraud showed a more than sevenfold increase between 2004 and 2009, exceeding the twofold rise in retractions related to mere error, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The following article http://tinyurl.com/3okrdm6 mentions several different studies of scientific paper retraction. Consider the very disconcerting statistic in one of those studies:

[Professor] John Budd’s research …spent years studying why publications are retracted. He found that between 1997 and 2008, 47% of the articles were pulled because of “misconduct or presumed misconduct.” Errors accounted for 25 %; 21% were taken down because the authors could not get the same results consistently. The remaining 7% were unclassified.

Meanwhile, a Wired article speculates about whether fraud has increased, or if perhaps other factors might be contributing [emphasis added]: http://tinyurl.com/3qmt2de

…a newfound willingness by journals to issue retractions, increased scrutiny from the blogosphere and the ever escalating complexity of scientific research, which makes innocent mistakes more likely. (According to one analysis, 73.5 percent of retractions were due to error, not fraud.)

One additional possibility that hasn’t been mentioned elsewhere: I wonder if the newfound reliance on electronic tools for data analysis has blurred the line between innocuous “tweaking” and outright manipulation.

Excellent point David!
Obviously Remote Sensing has a readership ( or at least a few members) who have digested Spencer&Braswell’s paper. Whether or not they agree with it, ( or even Trernberth’s and Schmidts strawman objections to it) would be extremely interesting to read.

Dr. Spencer publishes a paper. People don’t like this paper. They post about it on the internet, maybe send emails and letters to the editor. The editor resigns on the grounds of… the internet? Where is the refutation? Still in print. Still, allegedly, being peer reviewed. Were the errors that fundamental? If so, why did it get past the peer review process? And what keeps the rest of the peer review process from being tainted in this manner? I suspect my questions will fall unanswered, but I will see.

The busted climate gate science says it all , they did delete the data ,they did fake the figures , and its impossible to predict chaotic theory with models or anything else for that matter ,the climate has been changing for billions of yrs with or without people , its the scam of the century , after all liquid c02 is dry ice they use it to keep water ice frozen longer , without it every living thing in the world would die .

The models say the system response to more CO2 is a positive feedback which is likely to lead to catastrophic consequences requiring a complete reordering of global civilisation to avoid those consequences.

Lots of evidence is accumulating to suggest that in reality it is heavily negative.

Roy’s paper gently points out that natural variations in cloudiness and ocean behaviour (not currently taken into account in the models) would frustrate attempts to establish the sign of any feedback process anyway.

Very appropriately, the village of Ockham, in Surrey, near where I was brought up, has a pub called the Black Swan.

On another topic entirely, surely the secret star of the piece is actually the Managing Editor, Elvis Wang. If he is from the People’s Republic of China, I would guess that he is more or less untouchable, politically speaking.

Could it be that Wagner just found an excuse to abandon the AGW bandwagon, seeing that te edifice is crumbling following all the predictions that never happened and now the CLOUD confirmation that climate is driven by natural forces and not anthropogenic?

Since no one else has taken umbrage at the insults directed at engineers by Dr. Spencer, let me be the first.

If I tally it correctly, engineers, geologists and meteoroligists are the three groups that most consistently call BS on global warming. It is the PhD class (and politicians) that is most determined in claiming that it is real. I suspect that the reason engineers so consistently mock global warming is because they are in general, the most practical of the scientifically minded.

So before you throw your indignation towards engineers Dr. Spencer, perhaps you should consider that they see through the AGW propaganda more clearly than your beloved class of scientists. It is exactly PhD scientists that created this entire mess in the first place.

As usual, it is up to the engineers to clean to clean up after you. Fortunately, we have lots of experience at it.

Here is one explanation why Wagner resigned but the S&B paper was not retracted.

As a piece of science considered out of any context the paper is simplistic and its conclusions mundane, but not wrong. I posted when it first appeared and after quick skim –
“izen says: July 29, 2011 at 3:52 am Shorter Spencer and Braswell.
We could not match ten years of real world data with significant ENSO events with model data that makes the assumption that over longer timescales the ENSO effect is neutral.
Over a ten year period ENSO variations were larger than AGW forcings so it was impossible to measure the positive feedback effects that might amplify the radiative forcing from higher CO2.”

Undoubtedly it is a summary that could be improved, but I still think it stands as a defensible version of the extent of the claims made in the published PAPER.

The problem for Wagner as editor of Remote Sensing was that while the paper was relatively innocuous, subsequent publicity made it looked like Wagner and RS were credulous fools who had been scammed.

They had accepted a paper somewhat off-topic for their journal which did not appear to make any dramatic claims, but then found that publicity, the unkind might call it hype, and commentary about the paper went FAR further in its claims than is justified by the contents or conclusions of the paper.

It is this massive discrepancy between the content of the published paper and the claims made for it that resulted in Wagner concluding that the RS journal had damaged its reputation because of his decision to publish a paper that was then exploited to make claims beyond its range or remit. Either the journal and editor are complicit in this campaign of misrepresentation, or by resigning and directly referring to this campaign the editor can make clear his and the journals lack of involvement in this episode.
The fault he identifies that caused this error is that when ‘peer reviewing’ this paper that attacked the accuracy of models, little effort was made to see what the modelers might respond to the comparisons made between some satellite data and some models.
And whether the subject ALREADY had a literature – a scientific context – in which the S&B paper could be judged.

In a way this matches Dr Roy Spencer’s speculations about the IPCC/Team pressure, how many phone calls and emails would it take from the leading names in the field telling Wagner he had been made to look like an idiot by accepting a superficially mundane paper from known skeptics that was then used to make outlandish claims for the overthrow of a century of science on the climate ?

As Mr Trenberth’s paper is the only one referenced by Wagner as a pre-rebuttel to Dr Spencers paper, should we not ask the FBI/Scotland Yard or someone to compare the footprint on Wagners arse with the tread pattern of Trenberth’s trainers?

In 1920s Soviet Russia, in the middle of the jockeying for power following Lenin’s death, Stalin emerges to address an expectant crowd. “Comrades!,” he says. “I have in my hand a telegram from Comrade Trotsky, which I think will resolve our current differences of opinion. Let me read it to you: ‘You were right and I was wrong. You are the true heir of Lenin. I should apologize. Signed, Leon Trotsky.’”

The crowd goes wild! But wait, there’s one man in the crowd signaling to get Stalin’s attention. “Yes, comrade?,” Stalin asks. “Comrade Stalin, I think you know Comrade Trotsky is Jewish.” “Yes, I do.” “Well, I’m Jewish, too, and I thought I might have an extra insight on what Comrade Trotsky was trying to say. May I read the telegram myself?” “Of course, comrade!,” Stalin asks.

The man gets up and starts reading: “You were right and I was wrong? You are the true heir of Lenin? I should apologize? Signed, Leon Trotsky.”

Frightening to see the power the alarmists have over someone who is – now obviously – one of their own people. It should be used as a warning to the world of what will happen much more widely if these agenda-driven power freaks are allowed to gain control over the rest of us.

For my part, I find it a little surprising that, out of all those 56000 downloads, not one seems to have been downloaded by a competent scientist who could find any obvious error. That’s less than two per hundred thousand. And before some troll jumps on the upcoming “Sceptical Science” “refutation”, may I suggest that you consider the difference between:
[a] a refutation (a logically sound derivation, from proven premisses, of a conclusion which is impossible to reconcile with that which has been refuted – including, in science, a demonstration of the resulting, incompatible observations)
and [b] a rebuttal (basically, repetition of “No, it’s not!”, a technique usually referred to by its practitioners as a “refutation”, notwithstanding its lack of either logic or evidence).
I’m guessing that all we’ll see on “Sceptical Science” will be the latter (as usual), doubtless referring to any number of papers about the outputs of the alarmists’ partial and inaccurate models. Much more informative will be the warning telegraphed by the reappearance of Wagner in some other post, now that his own bias has become so transparently obvious.

Again, the BBC acknowledges the existence of skeptics! And again, they call them skeptics instead of deniers!

Surely this is only a change of tactics; but the futerra strategy of “treating climate change as fact” and ignoring the skeptics clearly has failed.

It is still not a factual discussion (Richard Black could have explained WHY Spencer’s paper is wrong by pointing to one of the refutations of his argument); but it looks like we are halfway back to the possibility of a debate.

AND: Richard Black LINKS to Spencer’s blog!

People: The only links Black gives to complicated sciency stuff are to Spencer’s paper and to Spencer’s blog! NO link given to the alleged “refutations” or to AGW consensus sciency stuff! I sense a disturbance in the Force…

John Kehr says it in one with: “If I tally it correctly, engineers, geologists and meteorologists are the three groups that most consistently call BS on global warming. It is the PhD class (and politicians) that is most determined in claiming that it is real. I suspect that the reason engineers so consistently mock global warming is because they are in general, the most practical of the scientifically minded.”

The AGW cult is led by academics and unscrupulous politicians. For those who don’t know, one of the golden rules of business is never to let academics anywhere into the management structure, or the results are guaranteed to be disastrous. There are occasionally a few notable exceptions to this golden rule.

So the bottom line is this: the AGW cult is a multi-government funded organisation run by unscrupulous politicians and management incompetents, adept in data manipulation and distortion. Yep, that’s definitely something to believe in!

The theory that CO2 causes warming is fairly well supported by the science, but on that flimsy hook of 0.5 to 1C of warming they hand up to another 5C of warming which they quite literally make up.

There is absolutely no evidence for this massive scaling up (i.e. fabrication) of real science except that the models have to fit the temperature curve … but if they have to fit the past temperature, they have to fit the future temperature curve, and the very fact they don’t fit the 21st century pause in warming is proof beyond all doubt that they are wrong and it was wrong to scale up in the way they did.

Never in the whole of science has a theory that is so widely believed been so thoroughly discredited!

The PhD class whose scientific discoveries of how the natural world works underpin almost ever aspect of modern life.

Engineers are great at engineering, and management great at…well awarding themselves huge bonuses until the excrement hits the fan and the public has to foot the bill for the fiaso because they are “too big to fail.”

Actually a number of my researcher friends went into management roles. One said he could not understand why they though he was so wonderful (he did turn the company around) as because as far as he was concerned it was all common sense.

Whats your point? The current global population could stand on the Isle of Wight. All emissions of methane are DWARFED by emissions of methane from termites. Emissions of aCO2 are DWARFED by emissions of methane and CO2 from forrests. The entire weight of the biomass of humans is also DWARFED by the biomass of insects (Actually, this is an insect/bacteria/virus world weight for weight).

On further contemplation of Mr Wagner’s letter of resignation, it would seem that the modellers have made themselves Emperors of Science. Pity they’ve got no clothes on, something Mr Wagner hasn’t noticed yet, for whatever reason.

davidmhoffer says:
September 2, 2011 at 10:50 am “The only way that an Editor-in-Chief, or anyone else in a position of authority for that matter, resigns a prestigious position is when they attempt to impose their will on the organization, and fail.”
Spot on!

The resignation letter starts off by stressing the importance of peer review
“Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science”

Followed by this hesitant admission that warns us a twist is coming
“Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the
review process”

Then the bad news
‘the editorial team unintentionally selected three
reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors”

Oh no, not sceptics! How did that happen?

But it turns out that this is no biggie
“This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong.”

Maybe the story will end happily after all….. but wait
“comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers”

Those reviewers!!! Are they bad? They are very bad.

They must have either
a)deliberately ignored or
b)failed to understand or maybe were
c)unaware of the existence of the discussions in open forums and Trenberth’s paper.
The consequences of their
a) bias or
b)stupidity or
c) laziness
meant the acceptance of a paper that is “fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal.”

But here is the next twist, this debacle has not dulled the immaculate lustre of peer review
“Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously”
and tops it off with a flourish
“I think Remote Sensing is an excellent journal”

So in this instance an excellent journal that takes the review process very seriously and followed correct formal procedure for selection of reviewers and the review itself still publishes fundamentally flawed papers.

How did we reach such a low point when the letter started so brightly, recall…
“Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science”

•Joe Romm says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:21 am
The “more to this story” is that Spencer probably got to name his reviewers (not uncommon) and the editors weren’t sophisticated enough to figure out they weren’t representative of the full spectrum of scientific understanding (that is uncommon).

It is rather interesting to note that the managing editor at ‘Remote Sensing’ is based in Peking, seeing that the Chinese are not exactly bowing to the IPCC political proposals.

Another point caught my eyes, and that is how the MSM and some blogs are reporting on Prof Wagner’s resignation. They have been turning it into a critique of Dr Spencer, and simply state that S & B11 is ‘a bad paper’ – no reasons given.
This, I’m afraid, means that the AGW believers will now point to these reports as ‘facts’ – never mind that they aren’t scientific rebuttals.

The whole resignation looks more and more to have been a political production with AGW mass appeal, rather than about the science.

The closeness to the forthcoming AR5 must have played a role here. However, It would seem that The Team assume wrongly that everybody has forgotten about the Climate Gate e-mails.
Well, we haven’t …

mwhite says:
““Commited Christian” British journalists use these phrases to imply extreme religious fundamentalism. Thought you’d like to know.”

It seems that Mr. Spencer has stepped on some big shoes with his work and rhetorics is going to be ugly.

Myself being a skeptic and atheist I still can’t see why somebodys personal belief would discredit scientific work. That would mean that only atheists could make “correct” science on every specific issue. That is a very very dangerous attitude to have. Journalists implying this are either idiots or dishonest, or both.

With recent studies by Kirkby, Lindzen, Spencer etc. I can’t believe how many journalists and politicians still believes this AGW nonsense about CO2 as dangerous pollutant.

But we must never lose sight of the fundamental truth that Spencer and Braswell have to overcome in all of this controversy-

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct.”

From that scientific axiom it’s so simple for even the layman to instantly recognize why so many of you people here are in constant denial about all the extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. Shame on you all for not being diligent enough to come up with the extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence to back them first!

DirkH says:
September 3, 2011 at 7:04 am
“otter17 says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:08 am
“Why not publish to an established journal that deals directly with climate science like the Journal of Geophysical Research?”

They wouldn’t know the concept of measuring things.”

By which i mean, climate scientists wouldn’t know it. It might be that the particular journal you mention might have knowledge about it due to its non-climate-science related activities. But as consensus climate science is all about computer model output and refuting real world data, the climate scientists will of course not know how to measure or not measure a thing.

All the fuss over a “peer reviewed” science paper.There is something in there they are so afraid of.But not to be properly responded to.Just sling the mud and hope that will make for a credible response.

Mature scientists who does NOT agree with it.Would just roll up their sleeves and write up a counterpoint paper and get it published.

It’s happened in every field of science and no doubt it will happen again.

The disputed resignation reasons can be addressed most fruitfully as follows:
1. Ask the reviewers whether in their opinion the paper they reviewed ‘ignored contradictory evidence’ etc etc.
2. Ask the reviewers whether they agree with the resigning editor.
3. Ask the reviewers whether science which condtradicts postuated models is real science, fake science or bad science. Or any of those depending on the quality of the data and the models….

What we have here is trial by media.

It is an entirely inappropriate way to proceed.

Particularly when the media decide on a political line to run and then seek quotes from people prepared to back it.

Quote:
But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists. Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data. Only through this close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into account.
************
Nonsense !
The paper stands or falls on it’s own merits. How it conforms to observations is important.
How it conforms or fails to conform to the model is immaterial.

There are so many contradictions in Wagner’s statement that one wonders what dark forces are at work. The very fast reaction by the Guardian and BBC look like they had been prewarned about what was about to happen and had their stories largely pre-written.

Is Wagner known to a Warmist? I am having trouble working out whose side Wagner is on and why he resigned in this messy way. Has he another job to go to?

I’m in no way religious, but the reference by the BBC to Spencer being a ‘committed Christian’ is absolutely disgraceful. It can only be to throw doubt on his science. I thought the science stood by itself? No wonder we are sceptics.

The peer review group fought Plate Tectonics for 80 years. Only when we had advanced measurements, did they finally relent (repent??). Now it is obvious, given the Mid-Atlantic RIF, that sea floor spreading moves the continents.

In the case of Global Warming, yes, we have had Global Warming due to the increased activity of the Sun (since 1650). The Sun has been quiet for only 6 years (2005 on); it will take another 10 years for the true effects to be realized. In 10 years, the new measurement techniques will be verified.

The fight for funding, sponsored by the APG group (new world order control of EPA), will only die when funding dies. Until then, I say good riddance to an arrogant, egotistical, Editor-in-Chief.

Since no one else has taken umbrage at the insults directed at engineers by Dr. Spencer, let me be the first.

If I tally it correctly, engineers, geologists and meteoroligists are the three groups that most consistently call BS on global warming. It is the PhD class (and politicians) that is most determined in claiming that it is real. I suspect that the reason engineers so consistently mock global warming is because they are in general, the most practical of the scientifically minded.

So before you throw your indignation towards engineers Dr. Spencer, perhaps you should consider that they see through the AGW propaganda more clearly than your beloved class of scientists. It is exactly PhD scientists that created this entire mess in the first place.

As usual, it is up to the engineers to clean to clean up after you. Fortunately, we have lots of experience at it.
****

As an old engineer, I too find that comment by Dr Spencer a bit surprising. But I’ll give him a pass & chalk it up to frustration.

Still, maybe he needs to spend a couple of days w/engineers at a power plant while scrambling to get back online at the end of a major outage. Sleep is not an option….

It will be most interesting to see where and when he takes his next job. This may have been his jump-off fanfare for a new job that was already arranged for, trying to discredit the paper that so threatens the validity of the precious crap-in-crap-out models that are at the heart of the AGW machine in the process.

As an engineer, I can confirm that PHD’s and career for life academics are hardly reliable. We have plenty of these propeller heads in my company and many of them are geniuses and they are often honored and respected for this, but that does not mean they can be trusted to be more right. In my experience, they LACK field experience to know that the REAL world does not always confirm precisely to models and equations. Us engineers have to straddle the sometimes grand canyon like divide between the equations and field results. This is why engineers use PHYSICAL models (experiments) to test theoretical models and even then we ADD a huge SAFETY FACTOR for what we don’t know we don’t know. Experienced engineers, like Burt Rutan, are knowledgeable in BOTH the real world and mathematical pursuits and tend to be humble in their convictions, whereas pure academics often overate the predictive power of models and theory.

Some people are speculating rather too wildly about Wagner’s motivations. For example suggesting that he fell on his sword for accepting the article. Please don’t speculate like that, without some evidence.

Perhaps Wagner fought long and hard to get the journal to retract the article, but the editorial board would not permit that. So he had to go.

Perhaps the journal’s owners are realising that their readers tend to be sceptical of the AGW position (being hard physicists) and find themselves in a tough position: they want to be taken seriously by all in the climate fraternity, but cannot retract without pissing off half their punters so they will not retract (or even publish rebuttal) leaving Wagner the door.

So many possible reasons are possible.

Please don’t berate people for speculating, and then profusely speculate yourself.

I’m in no way religious, but the reference by the BBC to Spencer being a ‘committed Christian’ is absolutely disgraceful. It can only be to throw doubt on his science. I thought the science stood by itself? No wonder we are sceptics.

As an atheist, I agree. If anyone believes that Spencer’s paper is biased by his religious views, it should be very easy to show how.

I think that Mr Wagner is being a bit hard on himself. But he did the right thing. If an editor allows a paper to be published explaining why the earth is flat – a paper that totally ignores (not refutes, just ignores) widely accepted scientific theory, then that editor should resign just as Wagner did – for wasting his readers’ time and tainting the reputation of his journal.

It’s good to see junk science exposed for what it is once in awhile.

For the future, I would suggest that the journal “Remote Sensing” stick to articles that pertain mainly to “Remote Sensing” and stay out of the climate change debate until their editors and reviewers gain more competence.

REPLY: “I would suggest that the journal “Remote Sensing” stick to articles that pertain mainly to “Remote Sensing””

Oh please, this has to be one of the stupidest comments ever made here. What do you think satellite measurement of the earth temperature is, in situ? Stick to commenting on things you know something about. Start with this definition. Then learn about the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) radiative budget instruments on
NASA’s Terra satellite, the remote sensing tool used in the paper. – Anthony

It would seem that my original post inferring that Mr Wagner had honourable motives was entirely mistaken for which I apologise. Bishop Hill and Retraction watch note that Remote Sensing stands by its decision to publish and will not retract the paper but allow it to be subject to the normal process of scientific debate. How solid that information is, I cannot confirm. However it does highlight three points:
1. Asian publications are going their own way and do not permit Team influence of any sort.
2. The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are quite confident in their ability to pursue the climate debate on its merits.
Bye bye American and European control of Science!

3. Wagner is a typical European figure head for an Asian publication and has buckled under team pressure. He needs an “out” to avoid being blackballed by the politically motivated “Climate” establishment otherwise it is the road sweepers brush for him, but the magazine would not allow him to criticise its Editorial process so all he could come up with was that blogs,opinions and press statements were his motivation. The man is an a***. (British spelling)

Whenever I see the word “consensus” among scientists in a politically and ideologically charged topic I read it as “bandwagon”. Science isn’t about consensus. It’s about explanations for natural phenomena that are demonstrably right or wrong. AGW climate science is rife with just-so stories and lacking in demonstration.

The CO2 bogeyman is an argument from ignorance based entirely upon circulation models that cannot backcast with any accuracy without introducing CO2 forcing and a mythical water vapor amplication thereof. Every skeptic I have any respect for questions the water vapor amplification and little else.

The argument from ignorance is “if it isn’t CO2 forcing we don’t know what else it could be [ergo CO2]“. Any mention in scientific circles of what else it could be is quashed by the bandwagon. It took 15 years for Svensmark’s hypothesis about GCR modulation of cloud cover to get further experment done that would either falsify or lend further support to it. When CLOUD experiment yielded data recenty it lent further support. In the meantime AGW alarmists tell us we don’t have 15 years to wait before taking draconian measures to prevent catastrophe. Isn’t that just precious? I read that as “hurry up and restructure the global economy before it’s discovered that anthropogenic CO2 warming is no danger”.

The unfortunate editor of Remote Sensing had to be severely punished to set an example for any other editors who dare to publish anything which disagrees with any elements of the bandwagon just-so story. This will have a chilling effect that you should, if you value the integrity of scientific investigation, find very alarming.

By threat or bribe or both this editor was coerced into resignation to send a clear warning to others what happens if they make waves that rock the CAGW boat.

And they wonder why they can’t convince enough of the public that CAGW is something to worry about. The public may not understand the science but they can smell a rat with an agenda from miles away. Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark and it isn’t Svensmark. Neither is it Roy Spencer or the editor of Remote Sensing.

I guess that I don’t understand why he would resign over this. It doesn’t make sense. If Wagner had identified a flaw in the peer review process at his journal, whether it be technical, systemic or ethical, why not remain as Editor-in-Chief and work from the inside to fix it? Instead he resigns over, supposedly, one paper? Weird.

And to state that he objects because the paper ignored other previous “refuting” work totally misses the point that scientific debate constantly questions and jostles the prevailing consensus. My God, the entire Mannian smoothed-out MWP debate is a case iin point. Herr Wagner’s decision smells opportunistic and political.

I fear that this journal has now been thrown to the CAGW wolves, and anything contrary that is published will be ignored and derided in the future. Weren’t there some comments in the Climategate emails about redefining the definition of peer review? I don’t think Herr Wagner was involved in those emails, but he sure seems to be part of the meme.

Tim Clark: “I predict that the CERN group will not be publishing the results of their research in this toilet fodder rag.”
************************************************************************************************************************

No doubt. I’m sure Roy Spencer is an honest man, and would freely admit he specifically sought to publish his paper in a relatively obscure on-line journal that did not have a record, or specific expertise in climate change science. A journal that did not have the expertise, or reviewing network, contacts, and clout on climate change that one of the more prestigious, international journals that routinely deal with climate change have. Being an honest man, I’m sure Mr. Spencer would openly admit he sought out “Remote Sensing” as an easier way of getting his material into the scientific press.

The CERN researchers no doubt, have the capability and confidence to publish in relevant, prestigious, and internationally recognized science journals, aka their paper in “Nature”.

As for the claims that Roy Spencer is the victim of a vast, global cabal of scientists who are out to get him, this assertion does not pass the laugh test. Its an excuse that is the rhetorical equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”.

As for the media report of Spenser being a devout christian, one might say that is not an appropriate journalistic fact. But, the fact is Roy Spenser is a self-professed devout christian. And he has written in favor of “intelligent design” nonsense. A “scientist” who promotes “intelligent design” and downplays the fundamental, well-established scientific tenets of evolutionary biology is perhaps a journalist fact worth noting. “Intelligent design” proponents in the scientific community are pretty much considered a laughing stock. Roy Spencer”s advocacy of intelligent design is relevant with respect to his collective scientific credibility.

David Ball says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:50 am
“All is moot until someone shows how the paper is wrong. If claims of “fundamentally flawed” cannot be shown, …….”

Exactly, David.
Lots of intelligent folks have read the Spencer Braswell paper, yet we see only bloviating and irrelevant allegation from the AGW brethren in the extensive responses above, not critical analysis demonstrating the ‘fundamental flaws’ that are repeatedly asserted. Time to ‘Put Up’ or ‘Shut Up’, Y’All ! Show us the ‘fundamental flaws’ and demonstrate empirically where they erred…… Please.

I’m afraid that his given reasons don’t seem to quite ring true with me in that they are probably incomplete.
OK, the review process may just possibly have been flawed.
OK, it was outwith the usual run of publications for that journal
But the paper itself has not been shown to be flawed
So why the resignation? Why jump if not pushed?
No reason for seppuku
Conclusion = was pushed and the reasons given are trumped up to preserve some face

“I think that Mr Wagner is being a bit hard on himself. But he did the right thing. If an editor allows a paper to be published explaining why the earth is flat – a paper that totally ignores (not refutes, just ignores) widely accepted scientific theory, then that editor should resign just as Wagner did –
for wasting his readers’ time and tainting the reputation of his journal.

It’s good to see junk science exposed for what it is once in awhile.”

Shaking my head in disbelief at the stunning arrogance and ignorance of your post. Who is publishing anything about the world being flat? Do I have to explain basic scientific method to you? If scientists of the last two hundred years had bowed to the consensus because the consensus was the majority view then we would be exactly 200yrs behind our current level of scientific understanding.

Does it take me to point out that it has been individual scientists bravely challenging the consensus of the time that has progressed science in every field. The most outrageous slur on a scientist I have ever heard on this blog comes from you, a breathtaking level of ignorance. Throughout the history of science the consensus has been proven wrong again and again and it was usually just one or two scientists fighting against the entrenched ignorance of the time that pushed the boundaries of knowledge forward.

Junk science represents the consensus ignorance of the time, flat earthers were the consensus majority of their time and you have the nerve to insult a real scientist as a defender of the consensus, that is what flat earther actually means, if you look if up you will see with your own eyes the proper definition. To be a flat earther is to defend a traditional ignorance in the face of new knowledge, describes you and your fake consensus friends perfectly.

Bernard J- another idiot who doesn’t realize that a scientist’s chief duty is to try to falsify his or her own work. ‘That don’t make it junk’, if they succeed at that or not, Numbskull, it’s the scientific process, or used to be!

What I see is a troubling sign for the warmists – a random selection of three respected scientists in another field went 3 for 3 against their agenda. I wonder if there were 9 reviewers what the ratio would be?

A robust and solid theory can easily withstand challenge, in fact a theory is not a fact, it is merely a temporary level of current understanding. There is always more to learn, always more to discover. The consensus is in fact merely a horizon beyond which is always another vista of knowledge waiting to be discovered. If we didnt strive to travel toward the horizon we would never progress, our boundaries would be limited to the current horizon and no more. Funnily enough this describes pre reformation religion in the West perfectly. We humans have a deep desire to see beyond the horizons that limit us like a straight jacket. There are those who hold us back with a selfish desire to limit our thirst for progress, they will lose, they have always lost no matter how hard they have fought. Our hunger to see the next horizon is far stronger than the scaremongers determination to stop us from taking the journey. The new priests of the orthodoxy lie and cheat and threaten but they always fail in the end.

The “more to this story” is that Spencer probably got to name his reviewers (not uncommon) and the editors weren’t sophisticated enough to figure out they weren’t representative of the full spectrum of scientific understanding (that is uncommon).

Not bloody likely.

Many journals ask authors to suggest reviewers.

Few offer a guarantee that they will use only the reviewers that the author has suggested.

They don’t even offer a guarantee that they will avoid using reviewers the author has asked them not to use.

And Roy Spencer is not such a big fish, from the standpoint of Remote Sensing, that editors would defer to his wishes as far as reviewers are concerned.

I edit a journal (fortunately, not one where CAGW and CGMs are part of the subject matter) and have seen how the process works from both sides.

I’m sure Roy Spencer is an honest man, and would freely admit he specifically sought to publish his paper in a relatively obscure on-line journal that did not have a record, or specific expertise in climate change science.

I’m sure that Roy Spencer decided to submit his article to a journal that did not have an established track record of blocking any and all manuscripts by researchers who are not proponents of CAGW (or CACC or whatever appelation you would prefer).

Which is rather a different thing, isn’t it?

As for Spencer’s belief in “intelligent design,” I am convinced that he is wrong about that, and I am reasonably sure that his ultimate motives are religious. They nearly always are in such cases.

But unless you can show a direct connection between Spencer’s reasoning about biological evolution and his reasoning about the radiation of heat from earth’s atmosphere into outer space (etc.), his religious beliefs are irrelevant. You might as well try to discredit all of Linus Pauling’s research on account of his nutty promotion of the curative powers of Vitamin C—or toss Isaac Newton’s work on gravitation into the crapper because of the effort he put into discerning secret messages in the Book of Revelation.

Next week, Prof Andrew Dessler of the department of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, is due to publish a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters offering a detailed peer-reviewed rebuttal of Spencer’s paper.

Remote sensing of climate variables from satellites is Roy Spencer’s expertise. I see no reason why he shouldn’t have chosen Remote Sensing to publish the article.

Detractors cite no specific flaws in the paper but rather just wave their hands around saying it should never have been published.

That handwaving might be enough to get an editor fired but it does nothing to dispute the paper itself. In fact it makes the paper itself appear much stronger because if the hand waving climate boffin asshats could falsify it that would be the convincing and scientific way to deal with it.

Has the fact that Roy Spencer believes in God been repeated yet as proof the paper is flawed?

You know either the paper must be good or the critic who says that is a moron for thinking attacking Spencer’s religious beliefs is going to have any effect. All that does is offend the large percentage of people in this world who hold religious beliefs and do nothing to discredit the merits of the paper.

Just a reminder:
Dr Spencer did not ‘choose’ his reviewers, as some obscurantists are trying to make us believe.

In his resignation letter Prof. Wagner states quite clearly that his editorial manager (which is obviously not Dr Spencer!), Mr Wang, picked three scientists from US universities, with good records of publications. Prof Wagner further states that there was nothing wrong with the review process as such.

His insinuation is that these three reviewers seemed to have been ‘sceptics’ – that is what he thinks, he doesn’t offer any proof.

So what we read in certain blog posts that somehow ‘Remote Sensing’ was ‘got at’ by Dr Spencer, or made to bend to his will, is twaddle.
Btw – aren’t the satellites which data Dr Spencer uses actually sensing remotely? so why should he not publish in a journal dedicated to just that?

There’s is not vast global cabal of lying scientists who are perpetrating a hoax, or working furiously to “get” Mr. Spenser. That’s tin foil hat stuff.

Do scientists lie? If yes, can we measure in anyway who the liars are? The science of the study of lying points to science as the location of subject matter. Climate Science appears to be a fertile field for lying. Scientists don’t often outright lie for malicious reasons. It’s a fudge factor reason that delays the true facts until the money is acquired and spent. If big money is being awarded, there is big lying going on.

There could well be a vast global cabal of scientists engaged in unintended deceit because they have accepted a false premise and are swayed by money not to employ the scientific method tool upon the deceit. Science history is littered with like examples. The truthsayers in these instances are always held to be heretics and are to be denied opportunity.

The “warmists” seem particularly hostile and juvenile about “deniers”. From observation it looks like they form themselves into political mobs that are mostly subjective and reactive in their focus to maintain their incomes. Calls to return to scientific thinking seem to fall on deaf ears. All this does is slow truth down. Eventually the truth will bear out and history will look at one side as tremendously wasting everyone’s time and money and forcing a recession on the population.

Sticking with the hard science would seem to be the best possible approach. And also the approach that provides the best foundation for the future.

You moron says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 3, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Joe Romm says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:21 am
The “more to this story” is that Spencer probably got to name his reviewers (not uncommon)
Did you not read the resignation letter?
In his resignation letter Prof. Wagner states quite clearly that his editorial manager (which is obviously not Dr Spencer!), Mr Wang, picked three scientists from US universities, with good records of publications. Prof Wagner further states that there was nothing wrong with the review process as such.
Idiot

Engineers are particularly knowledgable about feedbacks. One mechanical engineer can be a dolt of course but I’ve seen plenty of academics who can’t find their ass with two hands as well. Engineers don’t build things based on just-so stories. At least not for long. Academics build careers on just-so stories because it doesn’t matter if they’re wrong, or at least it doesn’t matter if they’re wrong once they’ve got tenure. Engineers don’t get tenure, Roy. They live and die by whether the stuff they design does what it’s supposed to do. Conversely, all the academics that were chirping about global warming causing Katrina with worse to be expected ahead – what happened to them when they turned out to be wrong? Nothing. They all still have their jobs. Imagine an engineer who designed a building to withstand Cat 4 howlers and the first tropical blow knocks it over. Think his company is going to let it slide and pay him to design another one?

If YOU are wrong in your paper you won’t get the axe. I mean the consensus (for whatever that’s worth) already said it’s wrong yet you still have the same office. If I design a computer and through some error in my judgement it causes great financial loss to my employer I get fired and would be lucky if I could keep it quiet enough to find a new job in the same profession.

It’s this lack of accountability in academics that makes scoffing at engineers coming from someone like you just absolutely laughable.

I can’t see the point in peer review it is something that scientists have invented in order to try and make what they say seem more important than it really is ,if it used to attempt to stop other scientists speaking out against AGW then it is wrong and it should be stopped.We should not let them get away with this.

Dave Springer says:
September 3, 2011 at 11:58 am
“@Roy Spencer
[…]
It’s this lack of accountability in academics that makes scoffing at engineers coming from someone like you just absolutely laughable.”

I think you’re overreacting. Spencer’s “(engineer??)” remark might just mean that he’s astonished by the Guardian citing “John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of St Thomas’s school of engineering in Minnesota”. One might be tempted to ask, what does he have to do with the entire affair. After all, when a skeptic engineer comes out, the first thing the warmist papers say is “You’re not a climate scientist so your opinion doesn’t count”.

•Joe Romm says: September 3, 2011 at 8:21 am
The “more to this story” is that Spencer probably got to name his reviewers (not uncommon) and the editors weren’t sophisticated enough to figure out they weren’t representative of the full spectrum of scientific understanding (that is uncommon).

How’s that saying go? Point one finger at me, and 4 [of your own] are pointing back at you!

Does Romm not even realise that he’s slamming “The Team,” himself, and every AGW positive article in existence here? I guess he must honestly believe that his second parenthetical really does let ‘em off the hook, but seems to me that if anything it hooks them all the more solidly. Conformation Bias, Significance Chasing, Selective Reporting, Publication Bias, Flawed Experimental Design, etc., and human nature are all strange and powerful things (well, ok, they’re actually common sense, but far far too often discounted, accepted, ignored, or unrecognized) – and ‘climate scientists’ haven’t somehow magically avoided all these problems any better than any other field (and frankly I suspect far less than those that are less complex, not spread across multiple fields, etc).

Folks who go on about conspiracies (either to embrace or ridicule the very idea), simply don’t recognize that in a group of humans, especially when it comes to something new and ‘hot,’ it doesn’t take some secret skulking conspiracy – just the above factors that our very natures are prone to. Next time you run across someone who says AGW must be true because there’s no way a global conspiracy could exist, just point ‘em to the articles I’ve linked below. Sure, conspiracies do occur, but they’re not necessary to wind up with widely held mistaken impressions supported by supposedly solid research.

If Romm is really this dense but is sincere (giving the benefit of the doubt), then he desperately needs to read Ioannidis and similar papers. Someone ought to giftwrap him copies of all related Ioannidis papers, and deliver them to him as an early Christmas present.

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

[quoting Ioannidis] ….“It’d be really great if the initial studies gave us an accurate summary of things. But they don’t. And so what happens is we waste a lot of money treating millions of patients and doing lots of follow-up studies on other themes based on results that are misleading.” In 2005, Ioannidis published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked at the forty-nine most cited clinical-research studies in three major medical journals. Forty-five of these studies reported positive results, suggesting that the intervention being tested was effective. Because most of these studies were randomized controlled trials—the “gold standard” of medical evidence—they tended to have a significant impact on clinical practice, and led to the spread of treatments such as hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women and daily low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Nevertheless, the data Ioannidis found were disturbing: of the thirty-four claims that had been subject to replication, forty-one per cent had either been directly contradicted or had their effect sizes significantly downgraded. [bears repeating: 49 of the MOST CITED & influential studies, yet only 34 had been replicated, with poor results in 41% of those! That’s in medicine, where apparently replicability studies are ‘the thing’ right now – the impression I get is that there is very little in the way of replicability studies done in ‘climate science’ leaving the door wide open to far worse problems than even medicine is seeing.]

The situation is even worse when a subject is fashionable. In recent years, for instance, there have been hundreds of studies on the various genes that control the differences in disease risk between men and women. These findings have included everything from the mutations responsible for the increased risk of schizophrenia to the genes underlying hypertension. Ioannidis and his colleagues looked at four hundred and thirty-two of these claims. They quickly discovered that the vast majority had serious flaws. But the most troubling fact emerged when he looked at the test of replication: out of four hundred and thirty-two claims, only a single one was consistently replicable. “This doesn’t mean that none of these claims will turn out to be true,” he says. “But, given that most of them were done badly, I wouldn’t hold my breath.”

According to Ioannidis, the main problem is that too many researchers engage in what he calls “significance chasing,” or finding ways to interpret the data so that it passes the statistical test of significance—the ninety-five-per-cent boundary invented by Ronald Fisher. “The scientists are so eager to pass this magical test that they start playing around with the numbers, trying to find anything that seems worthy,” Ioannidis says. In recent years, Ioannidis has become increasingly blunt about the pervasiveness of the problem. One of his most cited papers has a deliberately provocative title: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. “It feels good to validate a hypothesis,” Ioannidis said. “It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And that’s why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven”—he cites, for instance, the early work on hormone replacement therapy, or claims involving various vitamins—“you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.”

That’s why Schooler argues that scientists need to become more rigorous about data collection before they publish. “We’re wasting too much time chasing after bad studies and underpowered experiments,” he says. The current “obsession” with replicability distracts from the real problem, which is faulty design. He notes that nobody even tries to replicate most science papers—there are simply too many. (According to Nature, a third of all studies never even get cited, let alone repeated.) (continued online)

Peer review is a useful tool, as long as it is done honestly. The point is to get a bunch of smart people who are knowledgeable in the field being discussed to poke holes in a theory or set of observations. What we’ve seen is more on the order of “pal review”, where a small group of buddies review each other’s papers in such a way as to hide any holes.

He is afraid that if he stands by them even in the face of the ever growing criticisms (whether true or not by the likes of Trenberth, Abraham, Bickmore, ect) that the journal will suffer.

That was my take too. I wrote, “I suspect that the journal (one that is just getting started) received many subscription cancellations and cancellation-threats from college libraries and warmists, and the editor resigned to head them off and keep his publication afloat.”
(Or maybe the publisher pushed him off the sled to slake the wolves.)

Please don’t berate people for speculating, and then profusely speculate yourself.

Since you are obviously struggling with this, I’ll repeat it Jeff.

We have no idea why Wagner resigned. We cannot know because we do not have enough information. Nevertheless lots of people are speculating wildly.

I showed that I could make speculations that were the direct opposite of stories above, but still fit the facts as we know them. I wasn’t saying I was correct or likely or anything — I was attempting to show that almost any story could be made to fit what we know. For all we know he could have fondled and intern and need a convenient excuse to cover his rapid departure (almost certainly untrue, but it still fits the paltry facts we have).

It is better to examine his statements and see if they are true. Attempting to put motivation to a person about which we effectively know nothing is useless.

Some of the climate emails discussed getting rid of an editor (of GRL) who allowed publication of results contradicting the dogma. But up to now, it has not been done. This is intimidation pure and simple. Think about how the next editor will react to a submitted publication of a skeptical nature, and you will understand why this is being done.

Matthew
I can understand a publisher wanting to establish the credibility of a publication before publishing but I don’t understand peer review,this publication was clearly credible by a reputable scientist.

Roger Kinghts: “That was my take too. I wrote, “I suspect that the journal (one that is just getting started) received many subscription cancellations and cancellation-threats from college libraries and warmists, and the editor resigned to head them off and keep his publication afloat.”
*****************************************************************************************************************************

Lots of speculation, guesswork, and assumptions there.

Are you aware that “Remote Sensing” is a free, online open access journal? College libraries don’t need to subscribe to it. “Remote Sensing” doesn’t collect subscription fees. Its free and available for everyone to read, with publishing fees paid by the authors.

Alex: Weird for me…. I do not understand WHY the Editor resigned,….Because… 1, He was who endorsed the paper and now resigns as he is under pressure? …. or …. 2. He was not aware about the explosive force of the paper, and the paper passed through his sub-editor? Now the sub-editors revolt and fire the editor-in-chief? …. Very weird, but looks like gate-keeping at work.

Or he has some other personal agenda, one which will be fully revealed in the course of time and which is well-served by this very public resignation.

‘Isaac Newton’s work on gravitation into the crapper because of the effort he put into discerning secret messages in the Book of Revelation.’
Newton was an alchemist (and if my memory serves), an astrologer. All perfectly “consensus” activities of his time…

Have to agree the BBC article was a total hatchet job. Does every article that is in line with the IPCC have the caveat about the author’s religion and political leanings? It really doesn’t matter which way your beliefs fall on ‘climate change’, when you see a smear like this it should make you pause. ‘Move along people, nothing to see here’

David H.: Attributing all “climate change” to “anthropogenic CO2″ is more than one simplification too far.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Please don’t attribute statements to reputable scientific organizations that they never said.

No reputable scientific organization has ever said “all” recent warming is because of anthropogenic CO2. The correct characterization is that most recent warming is likely due to human activities.

This is easily verifiable by going to the U.S. National Academies of Sciences website, the IPCC web page, or any other reputable and internationally recognized scientific body with expertise in climate.

**********************************************************************************************************
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”

“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

surely the secret star of the piece is actually the Managing Editor, Elvis Wang. If he is from the People’s Republic of China, I would guess that he is more or less untouchable, politically speaking.

Of course he is untouchable. In a totalitarian regime like Communist China it is utterly impossible to get into a position like the one Mr. Elvis Wang has got (Managing Editor of an international scientific journal) without being an officer of the Secret Service (Ministry of State Security of the People’s Republic of China) or at least working for it, sending in regular reports and following instructions.

It is also unimaginable that Mr. Wang (and his superiors) were not aware of the political swamp they were driving Remote Sensing into by publishing a paper from a controversial figure like Dr. Spencer. It means it was done intentionally, following well considered (albeit possibly secret) official Party guidelines.

It also explains why all three American referees chosen by Mr. Wang happen to “share some climate sceptic notions of the authors”. It was not a bit unintentional as Prof. Dr. Wagner reckons, far from it. Just the opposite.

Some of the climate emails discussed getting rid of an editor (of GRL) who allowed publication of results contradicting the dogma. But up to now, it has not been done.

Incorrect. Editors have been forced to resign before for permitting publication of papers the hockey team didn’t like, and promptly replaced by `team players’. I’d give details, however unfortunately I loaned my copy of the Hockey Stick Illusion to somebody and can’t easily look it up.

Hi Solomon,
Roy is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory, and has discounted the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. I am not at all surprised that he is one of the very few PhDs with training in climate who still doesn’t accept the widely-held scientific consensus on recent global warming. His contrarian (and even biblical) views on evolution and climate science I think speak directly to his credibility as a competent scientist.

BTW: you should head over to his blog. He is ranting about conspiracy theories, about how people are out to get him, and he’s getting angry and TYPING IN CAPS and banning a commenter. I think the reasonable person can surmise that the rants and paranoia are very telling about Roy.

If Roy had wanted to, he could have submitted this paper to a reputable and internationally recognized paper that explicitly deals with climate science, instead of an obscure online geography journal. The reasonable person can conclude that Roy wasn’t confident about getting it published in a reputable climate journal, and that his intended audience really wasn’t research scientists who work in the field of climate. In fact, I think he had agendas that are not really scientific at all.

Or, as Roy said on his on web page:
“I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” — Roy Spencer

“it says Andy Dessler has a paper coming out in GRL next week, supposedly refuting our recent paper. This has GOT to be a record turnaround for writing a paper and getting it peer reviewed”

Wouldn’t you just love to have ‘RC’ release emails covering THAT rapid organisation of a response? Climategate had some very illuminating detail on the desperation to head-off/answer the slightest variation on the accepted theme. The more things change…..

Folks need to take a little more times sometimes to understand what they comment on – a case in point those who took offense at Spencer’s comments about ‘an engineer’ … had those folks actually read the article Spencer’s is referencing they would have found out exactly WHO (no, he wasn’t disparaging engineers on the whole) that engineer was:

John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of St Thomas’s school of engineering in Minnesota who criticised the Spencer paper upon its publication

I also love the attacks on Dr. Spencer’s for his Christian views – that they somehow create a bias in his scientific findings …. yet we never seem to see a similar comment or attack on things like Hanson’s outright fanaticism

Bernard J- another idiot who doesn’t realize that a scientist’s chief duty is to try to falsify his or her own work. ‘That don’t make it junk’, if they succeed at that or not, Numbskull, it’s the scientific process, or used to be!

Davidg, unlike you who, by his ignorance of how Spencer and Braswell have already been thoroughly deconstructed, demonstrates himself not to be a scientist, I am a scientist. I understand the scientific method, and I have experimentally both supported and refuted the work of others, and I have both supported and refuted my own hypotheses and discoveries.

I have no particular attachment to any extant understanding beyond such being the most parsimonious descriptor of a discipline at a moment in time. In fact, as an ecologist I would dearly love the current consensus understanding of the physics of ‘greenhouse’ gas warming to be wrong, because the implications for my own discipline would then not be nearly so concerning. I spend a lot of time reading contrarian claims, and scrutinising their work for validity, looking to see if they have something – anything – that will stand up, but always their claims fail the test.

Spencers’s and Braswell’s work has already been shown to fail the test of defencibility. For those folk above who are ignorant of this fact, and who are demanding a peer-reviewed rebuttal – hold on to your knickers petals, because next week Andrew Dessler* will be publishing (in Geophysical Research Letters) exactly that – a peer-reviewed paper deconstructing S&B11.

You may find that getting what you wished for is most unpalatable…

[*Mea culpa. At the top of this thread I typed John Abraham’s name instead of Dessler’s, because he was mentioned in the paragraph preceding the mention of Dessler in the original Guardian article. The perils of blogging at 3:00 am.

I’m surprised that all the hawkeyes here, who can apparently spot an inaccuracy at a thousand paces, didn’t smack me around to hell and back for my sleep-deprived mix up…]

Someone here suggested that this has all the hallmarks of a staged event, considering the speed with with the Guardian and BBC were able to publish articles on it. It seems logical. I Know the Europeans don’t really understand us and we certainly don’t understand them but they’ve got to realize the next election in the US might usher in Republican control of both houses of congress and if a Republican president gets elected, it will likely be with the enthusiastic support of Christian evangelicals. Shenanigans like these are more likely to make doubters of the consensus climate science into despisers. That’s not a smart position to put yourself when budget cutting will most likely define the next congress as opposed to spending.

I would be hard pressed to find a less coherent point in this thread. Aside from the original reason for resignation, of course. I’d vote for Obama twice before I vote even considered Rick Perry, if that is what you are talking about. I am not praising Obama, I am saying that Rick Perry is a clown. The whole Republican field is pitiful. There hasn’t been a good leader Dick Cheney George Bush, and he was as liked as Obama. The right is as much a shoe-in as the left. Personally, I’m disgusted by that whole scene.

Anyhow, I find it odd that no one has offered an example of what Dr. (yes, no matter how bad it burns up peter stone, he’s a PhD.) Spencer wrote. If it was so easy that you could write and peer review it in a month, surely someone could demonstrate the error here pretty quickly? I doubt Anthony is censoring it.

If I remember right Dr. Spencer spent a couple of years reviewing the state of evolutionary theory before making any claims. I wonder how much time Peter Stone has spent. I also suspect Mr. Stone is unaware of the problems with macro-evolution.

In addition, Mr. Stone’s repetition of the DailyKos talking point about ‘cabals of scientists’ is very telling. I’ve never heard a skeptic make such a claim. Only warmists that don’t understand the issues. There is no need for any cabal. It all has to do with self-interest. If Mr. Stone doesn’t understand self-interest and exactly why climate scientists would fight to maintain the status quo, then he lacks simple common sense.

Wagner, on the basis of his letter, is what was once called “a self-advertising duffer”.

Climate trolls fall into the same category.

Shooting themselves in their own carbon footprint.
***
Berényi Péter @ 3:31 pm – no doubt you are right. At the geopolitical level, there is obivously a “great game” going on with the whole climate thing, with China, Germany and the USA as the main players. China, being a beneficiary of Global Warming doctrine, is (naturally) positioning itself to also gain when the doctrine collapses. Germany has gamed the system magnificently, getting credit for the collapse of heavy industries in the former East Germany. Now the Germans are ditching nuclear power (old infrastructure, costly to replace) and replacing it with cheap coal, thus maintaining competitive advantage for their export industries. A main motive for the USA (as has been the case at least since the early 70s) is to hoard their own oil reserves. No doubt there are other motives at play, none to do with Global Warming/Climate Change of course.

@Peter Stone: “settled facts… the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

So nothing settled about CO2 sensitivity then according to the US National Academies of Sciences? So we don’t need to panic yet and spend billions of dollars on carbon emission reduction? Phew, that’s a relief.

Sorry if this is redundant, but his principal point seems to have been that it is necessary for those who observe physical data to reconcile their observations with the predictions of modellers who may have predicted something else. This is not science. If the observed results do not coincide with the predicted results, then the fault lies with those who made the predictions. Period. It may be that a longer and more detailed study is needed to reconcile the conflict, but it is never correct to state (or assume, or imply) that the model is right when the physical data contradict it.

What does any bully in any sandbox on any playground do when he doesn’t get his own way?
Others will do the same when, finally, they don’t get their own way.
With David Suzuki and Al Gore the clock runs too slowly.

This turkey clearly resigned because the AGW Politbureau just had to have a carcase to hang the blame on otherwise the issue would lie with the science itself. Now it lies with the negligence of the sacrifice Wagner in letting the Spencer and Braswell paper be published. His true crime it would seem lies in not sufficiently stacking the jury.

The wicked web continues to unwavel as it will continue to do as Solar 24 rolls on and more and more ordinary citizens look out their windows and up at the sky, scratch their heads and say ” WTF?”

Given your confidence that Spencer is mistaken, why do you not state the argument here in your own words. I am always astounded when people post that someone else has proved something. If you do not like argument, why do you post here?

“Roy is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory, and has discounted the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. I am not at all surprised that he is one of the very few PhDs with training in climate who still doesn’t accept the widely-held scientific consensus on recent global warming. His contrarian (and even biblical) views on evolution and climate science I think speak directly to his credibility as a competent scientist.”

Did you know that there is within the American Philosophical Association an official organization with a huge membership that is known as the Society of Christian Philosophers. From what you have said, I guess that there are no such organizations in scientific societies. Could you please explain to me why scientists are so remarkably less tolerant of their fellow man than philosophers?

If there is this much controversy over S&B, what on earth is going to happen when Dr. Salby’s paper is finally published in the near future?

I wonder what is going on behind the scenes as his paper makes its way through the review process. It has already been “thoroughly debunked” by blogs somehow without even being available for review.

The only thing that would have saved S&B some grief was the obligatory tag “although this does not disagree with the notion that current warming is largely man driven.” inserted in either the opening remarks or conclusion section as required by the “peer reviewed journals”.

The following is technically speculation based on circumstantial evidence, but STRONG circumstantial evidence. I believe the AGW “Team” has just scored a massive “own goal”, and I do mean MASSIVE.

R.S. Brown’s comment above with a link to Wolfgang Wagner’s bio at the Vienna University of Technology led me to another page on their site which is FAR more important. It is Wagner’s position THERE that explains (in my mind)… everything.

Wolfgang Wagner is shown on their web site as being in charge of “Physical Modeling” and as such, sits at the cross roads of their two other major programs, which are:

In other words, Wagner’s entire career, the very pinnacle of his professional existance, his “day job” if you will, rests ENTIRELY on the integration of remote sensing data with environmental (read climate) modeling. In that context, read again these words excerpted from Wagner’s resignation statement:

“The use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models is therefore a very important part of our work. But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists. Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data. Only through this close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into
account.”

So there you have it.Faced with an outcry from the modeling community, Wagner was left with a stark choice. Alienate the entire research community his professional existance (and funding) rests upon, or “do something” about the Spencer and Braswell paper. My guess is he tried. And was refuted. His only option to retain his professional existance and continued cooperation with the modeling community, which is clearly his mandate from the Vienna University, was to resign in protest over the paper. Which he not only did, but:

HE ACTUALLY CITED THE FACT THAT THE MODELLING COMMUNITY WAS NOT CONSULTED BY SPENCER AND BRASWELL AS A MAJOR REASON FOR THE PAPER BEING FLAWED.

If I am correct, Wolgang Wagner should be excoriated for what he has done. But this also is true:

If I am correct, it means that the editorial board of Remote Sensing, and their parent organization MDSI, stood up to their Editor-In-Chief and told him where to go. Unable to force a retraction, or any other kind of action to assuage the colleagues and programs upon which his day job depends, Wolfgang Wagner resigned. The text of his explanation is NOT the reason for his resignation. It is a public apology to his colleagues, the “Team” if you will, that he has offended, the funding mechanisms he has put at risk, by allowing Spencer and Braswell’s paper to be published, and then failing to get it retracted. The weakness of the rest of his arguments lead me to no other conclusion than that.

Perhaps instead of excoriating Dr Wolfgang Wagner for cowardice, we should instead be applauding the editorial board of Remote Sensing. Applauding, and encouraging them to stick to their guns. Doing so doesn’t put their business at risk, though no doubt there will be threats to that such as delisting them from their status as an academic journal. But I doubt the clout of the “Team” which was so frightening to Wagner could reach that far in any brief span of time.

In the menatime, Remote Sensing has just sent a very loud message to the scientific community. And it sounds like this to me:

“You got science, we will publish it. No one bullies us into submission”.

Bernard J. says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:04 pm
“….hold on to your knickers petals, because next week Andrew Dessler* will be publishing (in Geophysical Research Letters) exactly that – a peer-reviewed paper deconstructing S&B11.
You may find that getting what you wished for is most unpalatable…”

Response: The rhetorical equivalent of “Oh Yeah? I’m going to get my daddy and he’ll show you!” Please demonstrate that you are ‘a scientist’, rather than just a rude ‘ecologist’. You assert the Spencer Braswell paper has already been ‘thoroughly deconstructed’. As such, it should be quite simple for a scientist like you to enlighten all of us as to their errors and to demonstrate where they went wrong, with empirical evidence illustrating their mistakes. Show your work… and remember to use empirical evidence, not chimeric models biased by opportunistic assumptions. You will be graded….

“The perils of blogging at 3:00 am….. I’m surprised that all the hawkeyes here, who can apparently spot an inaccuracy at a thousand paces, didn’t smack me around to hell and back for my sleep-deprived mix up…”

Response: Sleep more, stop the name calling, and offer a cogent critique of the Spencer Braswell science, if you can…. Anything else is just cowardly mud slinging, unbecoming of a ‘real scientist’

Cassandra King says:
September 3, 2011 at 10:26 am
“We humans have a deep desire to see beyond the horizons that limit us like a straight jacket. There are those who hold us back with a selfish desire to limit our thirst for progress, they will lose, they have always lost no matter how hard they have fought. Our hunger to see the next horizon is far stronger than the scaremongers determination to stop us from taking the journey.”

SethP says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“In the meantime, Remote Sensing has just sent a very loud message to the scientific community. And it sounds like this to me:
“You got science, we will publish it. No one bullies us into submission”.

The only people that control what their publication publishes are the owners/editors of that publication. If they publish rubbish, their publication suffers. If they publish according to a dogma or doctrine they will limit their audience to the believers of that dogma or doctrine. If they want their publication to be well-respected, widely read, in a word successful, then they need to publish high-quality papers that spark debate and further analysis and study. This will increase the numbers of people who will use your publication, increasing the value both scientifically and commercially. This is called letting the free market determine the success or failure of your venture.

If the editor feels that he has failed some quality control process that the publication should adhere to, then resignation is a reasonable consequence. If he has been bullied into resigning because of other people’s opinion then he is not worthy of the position of editor in any case. If the publication continues down the path of following dogma rather than discussion, then it will ultimately pass into obscurity and will not be missed.

[*Mea culpa. At the top of this thread I typed John Abraham’s name instead of Dessler’s, because he was mentioned in the paragraph preceding the mention of Dessler in the original Guardian article. The perils of blogging at 3:00 am.

I’m surprised that all the hawkeyes here, who can apparently spot an inaccuracy at a thousand paces, didn’t smack me around to hell and back for my sleep-deprived mix up…]

I noticed and diagnosed it, but didn’t bother to mention it, figuring someone else would do so. There’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t get caught here in comments (even though some readers must catch them)–and then sometimes a half-dozen posters will jump on a similar flaw.

Funny how the warmists get all upset over media exaggeration of published papers which go against CAGW. We haven’t heard anything about all the exaggeration of all the CAGW drivel that has been published over the years.

Mr. Stone’s repetition of the DailyKos talking point about ‘cabals of scientists’ is very telling. I’ve never heard a skeptic make such a claim. Only warmists that don’t understand the issues. There is no need for any cabal. It all has to do with self-interest.

Peter Vaughn wrote:

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

IMO, such indirect self-interest is only 25% (?) of the story. More of it has to do with faddism, messianism, the environmental / anti-chemical mindset and its ready-made vulnerability to the warmist narrative, “PC” pressures on campus, a general desire to move away from fossil fuels, credulousness about the claims for renewable energy and the willingness and the ability of the Rest Of the World to ramp down CO2 production, and half a dozen other factors.

BTW: you should head over to his blog. He is ranting about conspiracy theories, about how people are out to get him, and he’s getting angry and TYPING IN CAPS and banning a commenter. I think the reasonable person can surmise that the rants and paranoia are very telling about Roy.

Here’s the link to the thread where these comments are occurring. Spencer was reacting to a noxious poster with the handle Obscurity, Here are some comments from him & Spencer’s responses:

Obscurity says:
September 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM

You trying to frame this as something to do with the IPCC “gate keepers” is unsubstantiated and pathetic. You are the one trying to politicize this Roy and the one entertaining conspiracy theories.

“Kudos to Kerry Emanuel at MIT, and a couple other climate scientists, who actually read the paper before passing judgment.”

Actually the problem here is more likely that Dr. Emmanuel may not have read your paper carefully enough. We all know that even bad science can sometimes be convincing upon a cursory read. But the reality is that when climate scientists made the effort to replicate your work they found serious problems with it. You need to move away from using that overly simplistic model Roy, it keeps getting you in trouble and you keep refusing to learn from previous mistakes.

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Obscurity, you are well versed with talking points that others have invented, I’ll give you that. Maybe you should try to understand the science instead.

Obscurity says:
September 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM
…………
Re Trenberth et al. (2010), it is relevant b/c that paper dealt with ENSO and ENSO is well-known to have an impact on global temperature with a peak correlation with a lag near 5 months 4-7 months. in fact, S&B11 stater:

“Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000-2010 was due to ENSO [8], we conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced. We hypothesize that changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate system.”

Now Trenberth et al. (2010) conlcude that “Any feedback analysis must also recognize changes in ocean heat storage and atmospheric energy transport into and out of the tropics which are especially large during ENSO events. While the tropics are important in climate sensitivity, values of the latter based on only tropical results are misleading.”

the fact remains that Roy’s tuned and overly simplistic model is not capable of simulating those critical processes.

So omitting Trenberth et al. (2010) is indeed relevant and it was a glaring omission from S&B2011, especially in the context of their discussion about ENSO and its role in modulating global temperatures for the period of study.

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Well, well…is that you, Kevin Trenberth, hiding behind a screen name?

First of all, our results were GLOBAL, so transport between regions are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Secondly, the lag associated with the heat carrying capacity was central to the point we were making!!! If you even bothered to read our paper, you would understand that!

OMG! You are wasting time and space here with your straw men and red herrings!

CONGRATULATIONS, OBSCURITY, YOU ARE THE FIRST TO BE BANNED FROM THIS SITE. THE CHARGE IS EITHER (1) CHRONIC IGNORANCE, OR (2) MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION. YOUR CHOICE.

I don’t see any big problem in posting a banning notice in capital letters. “Notices” of such import should have attention called to themselves, although I’d prefer boldfacing. It’s something PO’d site moderators often do–and “Obscurity” had given him cause with his sneers. Also, I don’t see any real “ranting,” which suggests something really “over the top.” This is close, but no cigar.

Bernard J. says:
“Spencers’s and Braswell’s work has already been shown to fail the test of defencibility. For those folk above who are ignorant of this fact, and who are demanding a peer-reviewed rebuttal – hold on to your knickers petals, because next week Andrew Dessler* will be publishing (in Geophysical Research Letters) exactly that – a peer-reviewed paper deconstructing S&B11.”

Haha, really? How come it’ll not be published in the same journal? And how did it pass peer review so quickly?

davidmhoffer;
Just to summarize your “OWN GOAL” comment:
Wagner OK’d and published, in his role as Remote Sensing chief editor, an article which offended the people who control his strings and funding at Vienna UoTech. He then was instructed/obliged to try to get RS to withdraw the paper. They told him to take a hike, and so he has and this is his CYA explanation.

The assumption that a small increase in the percentage of co2 keeps in more heat is based on the misdiagnosis. Heat goes around co2 and escapes it. The IPCC cannot accept that basic fact – since co2 cannot change its appropriate absorption bands, it remains a fact.

The IPCC and its protagonists arguments are akin to the analogy of a school room: If the classroom door is full open, presumably all of people will leave the room when session ends. By some contrived twist of logic, they maintain that if the classroom door was 3/4 open, then it would keep some of the students in the classroom when the bell rang. To their theory, the door determines the percentage of people staying behind.

The entire weight of the biomass of humans is also DWARFED by the biomass of insects (Actually, this is an insect/bacteria/virus world weight for weight).
<<

Environmentalists always fret about “cute” endagered species such as polar bear cubs or sea otters. The important organisms to the environment are the cleaners and filters. That means organisms like fungi and bacteria. It’s hard to get people to worry about fungi. That’s why I think their campaigns are a joke and misleading.

I have no particular attachment to any extant understanding beyond such being the most parsimonious descriptor of a discipline at a moment in time. In fact, as an ecologist I would dearly love the current consensus understanding of the physics of ‘greenhouse’ gas warming to be wrong, because the implications for my own discipline would then not be nearly so concerning. I spend a lot of time reading contrarian claims, and scrutinising their work for validity, looking to see if they have something – anything – that will stand up, but always their claims fail the test.
<<

Which test did these claims fail? Your idea of how they should work? Did you ever scrutinize the “consensus” claims? How about the lack of proper atmospheric warming for the GHG effect? How about the 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature in ice core samples?

Please note: This page appears to have been quietly revised and reformatted
sometime between September 3rd and September 4th, 2011.

The Vienna University of Technology – Institute of Programming & Remote
Sensing has added a supplemental page to it’s website. This appears to have
been written and backdated to September 2nd, discussing Wagner’s resignation
and his alleged reasons for bailing as the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing.

“By some contrived twist of logic, they maintain that if the classroom door was 3/4 open, then it would keep some of the students in the classroom when the bell rang. To their theory, the door determines the percentage of people staying behind.”

I am skeptic on CAGW but I think your analogy is wrong. If the studends slowed on their exit is “heat” escaping, then there is a resultant higher temperature than otherwise. I can live with that! It might onlly be 0.6 C but it woulld be welcome in northern climates.

Mooloo, you cannot say “we don’t know why he resigned”. We have his resignation letter, which is contradictory and nonsensical. It does lead to speculation about backroom shennigans, of which we have been informed by the Climategate e-mails.

“Roy is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory, and has discounted the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. I am not at all surprised that he is one of the very few PhDs with training in climate who still doesn’t accept the widely-held scientific consensus on recent global warming. His contrarian (and even biblical) views on evolution and climate science I think speak directly to his credibility as a competent scientist.”

I have been a skeptic for about 10 years. I always gave due credit to the people I most distust because that’s what being skeptical is to me. Disbelieving, but always trying to disprove my own beliefs and trying to understand where somebody else derives their views. It’s a correlation with freedom of speech where you don’t just believe you have the right to believe what you want, you believe everybody else has the right to theirs. However, I wasn’t against the IPCC, UEA, NASA et. al because of the science, it was always the sensationalized media reports which drove me mad. And, because I didn’t see what I felt was warranted reprisal by the climatologists against misleading reports, I felt they must be complicit, at least passively. It was because of these reasons that when reading how the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing quit, I at first was dutifully regarding his leaving as suspicious. His letter, in it’s entirety, is quite appropriate to my mind and was perfectly acceptable for his reasons to be seen as an act of decency given what he believes. I always gave Anthony credit where it was due, as an honest man doing what he believes, even when he was wrong, as we all are when trying to be progressive. I gave all the guest authors their due respect as people who wanted to enlighten the world, even when posts were zany. So, as is sometimes the case, I went to real climate to read their summary of this debacle. The summary by the moderators and the interaction especially between RW, Simon Abington and Gavin clarified for me, some major flaws I always felt existed in CAGW theory. I don’t have time to work out all the details so I know at some point I have to trust someone is not lying to me — otherwise I’ll be searching forever for my shadow. I need to read and understand the Spencer & Braswell because from what I’m reading, I have severe misapprehension that being skeptical is not right anymore.

“The argument from ignorance is “if it isn’t CO2 forcing we don’t know what else it could be [ergo CO2]“. Any mention in scientific circles of what else it could be is quashed by the bandwagon. It took 15 years for Svensmark’s hypothesis about GCR modulation of cloud cover to get further experment done that would either falsify or lend further support to it. When CLOUD experiment yielded data recenty it lent further support. In the meantime AGW alarmists tell us we don’t have 15 years to wait before taking draconian measures to prevent catastrophe. Isn’t that just precious? I read that as “hurry up and restructure the global economy before it’s discovered that anthropogenic CO2 warming is no danger”.”

Very much agree, with one exception: “global economy” should read “western economy”. These people are so crazed they don’t understand the unintended consequences of their actions. Me, I’m going to use the “precautionary principle” and start my whole family learning Mandarin :).

“I would be hard pressed to find a less coherent point in this thread.”

Consider this one you penned.

” Aside from the original reason for resignation, of course. I’d vote for Obama twice before I vote even considered Rick Perry, if that is what you are talking about.”

That would be voter fraud and is the only way the current president can possibly get reelected. The clown is the one in whitehouse today.

“I am not praising Obama,”

Yeah, that’s pretty tough to do. I understand why not.

“I am saying that Rick Perry is a clown.”

If Texas was a country it would have the 11th largest economy in the world. Rick Perry is longest serving governor in the state’s history. Texas has prospered the entire time he was governor and of larger states in these United States has weathered the recession far greater adding 1 million jobs while the country as a whole lost 2 million.

When dimbulbs like you figure out belief in God doesn’t imply stupidity, lack of common sense, sloth, or any number of other derogatory labels the so-called culture war will end and we can focus on getting other kinds of moronic bigotry beaten down in the dirt where they belong.

“Folks need to take a little more times sometimes to understand what they comment on – a case in point those who took offense at Spencer’s comments about ‘an engineer’ … had those folks actually read the article Spencer’s is referencing they would have found out exactly WHO (no, he wasn’t disparaging engineers on the whole) that engineer was:”

It sure looked like Spencer was implying that engineers aren’t qualified to critque analysis of datasets to identify and characterized feedbacks. That’s actually a large part of what many engineers do for a living. Mechanical engineers are no exception.

“John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of St Thomas’s school of engineering in Minnesota who criticised the Spencer paper upon its publication”

Spencer could have, but didn’t, focus on Abraham’s experience and track record, but instead did a slothful and unbecoming thing by denigrating engineers in general. Obviously Spencer doesn’t have a clue about what engineers actually do in their jobs else he would have known that analysis of datasets to tease out what’s actually happening the real world with complex systems of all sorts is a large part of what they do and unlike unaccountable academics like Spencer they suffer more than embarassment when they get something wrong. Engineers aren’t in the business of publishing abstract papers where there’s no financial or physical harm done if they get it wrong.

Richard: “If I remember right Dr. Spencer spent a couple of years reviewing the state of evolutionary theory before making any claims. I wonder how much time Peter Stone has spent. I also suspect Mr. Stone is unaware of the problems with macro-evolution.”

Hi Richard,
I don’t agree with your assertion that there are serious doubts about evolution, about climate science, and the claims of a global conspiracy to keep Roy from publishing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The editor’s resignation letter provides explicit detail about why he resigned. There’s nothing in there about being threatened, harrassed, or coerced. If you have strong, substantive and plausible evidence that what the Editor wrote himself isn’t true, feel free to provide it.

As for your doubts about evolution, evolution is one of the most well established scientific facts in the history of science. Climate science, while not reaching the threshold of proof that evolution has, is widely and almost universally accepted by climate scientists worldwide, and is supported my multiple lines of evidence and decades of research. Note, that I am aware that a “scientific fact” is not the same as a “fact” as used in everyday English lexicon. Science is probabalistic, and the scientific method is not intended to proved 100% bullet-proof guarantees.

If you have strong and credible arguments the evolution is in doubt, and that the state of modern climate science is the result of a global hoax by scientists who faked data and duped the public (e.g., climate gate, and similar claims on this thread) , please provide it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unsubstantiated claims, speculation, and guesswork on a blog don’t cut it.

Perhaps Remote Sensing should have taken the same approach. Retract the paper, pay Spencer and Braswell each $10,000 and ask them to submit more papers in the future as long as they did not conflict with their philosophical bent.

“The argument from ignorance is “if it isn’t CO2 forcing we don’t know what else it could be [ergo CO2]“. Any mention in scientific circles of what else it could be is quashed by the bandwagon. It took 15 years for Svensmark’s hypothesis about GCR modulation of cloud cover to get further experment done that would either falsify or lend further support to it. When CLOUD experiment yielded data recenty it lent further support. In the meantime AGW alarmists tell us we don’t have 15 years to wait before taking draconian measures to prevent catastrophe. Isn’t that just precious? I read that as “hurry up and restructure the global economy before it’s discovered that anthropogenic CO2 warming is no danger”.”

Jose: Very much agree, with one exception: “global economy” should read “western economy”.
——————————————

I know exactly the point. Western nations are the designated scapegoats. No argument there but the restructuring is indeed global because western nations aren’t just being asked to moderate use of fossil fuel they’re also being asked to provide financial compensation to any non-western nations who can gin up some kind of damages caused by anthropogenic global climate disruption. You know like every drought, every flood, every extreme weather event, it’s the fault of rich western industrial nations who wouldn’t be rich without fossil fuels. So it’s really all about redistribution of wealth and involves the entire global economy.

“Appeal to authority is one of the primary things being discussed on this thread, and you’ve just given us a splendid example.”

Appeal to authority isn’t always a logical fallacy when the authority really is qualified. Particularly when:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

The problem as I see it is more that the consensus isn’t nearly as great as imagined. A core group of CAGW warriors define who’s qualified and conspire to block access to the usual journals for any contrarians. There are a large number of people who are qualified to examine individual claims made by climate boffins – from statisticians to physicists to engineers to computer programmers to meteorologists. A great many people analyze datasets and employ computers for analysis, modeling, and simulation as part of their work. Climate boffins imagine they’re the only experts in those areas and they’re actually rather deficient in all of them. I’m left trying to figure out where their expertise really lies – measuring tree rings, drilling ice cores?

It is becoming more and more obvious that Dr. Spencer’s paper is perceived by the AGW/environmentalist faction, as a serious threat to consensus and subsequent hypothesis. It is the only way to explain the organized, all out, send in the reserve, attack.

This supercilious, maximum effort, while giving some comfort to the dogmatic choir, will be seen, by the many on the sidelines, as a blatant overreaction. The viciousness and vile heaped onto a reasonable paper, will cause many, to question the motivation and soundness, of what is obviously a AGW agenda.

The only real possibility of any gains, for the AGW camp is if they can goad Dr. Spencer into saying or doing something unwise. He does seem to be somewhat rattled by the intensity of the attack. Hang in there Roy, don’t let them get your goat and do not respond to provocation. There is not much here requiring defensive action. The onus is entirely on Wolfgang Wagner, to defend and explain his actions. The rest is just the bleating of mindless sheep. They are merely accusing you of what they themselves are guilty of. They are the ones hiding data, manipulating the review process, and exposing their corrupt and ugly nakedness.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And he says it twice, just in case anyone missed it the first time.

Here’s an extrordinary claim for peter: A rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

That was the incessantly repeated prediction that began the whole global warming scare. But now there is zero evidence supporting it. So the purveyors of what has morphed into a grant-driven scam must continue to flog that dead horse by keeping tight control of the climate peer review system. In the process, science becomes corrupted, one-sided propaganda, and really weird things happen, like like Wagner’s resignation over… what, exactly?

Any fool can see that this is just an attempt by climate alarmists to keep control of the peer review propaganda machine.

I think the one thing missing from this discussion is that the warmists/alarmists really do believe they are right. In fact, they are so convinced they are right that they don’t even need to read SB11. And, if they do read it, they are simply looking for any problem they can find. And, they will find what they believe are problems. They are so consumed by groupthink/confirmation bias that there is no room for any other possibility.

This is why their actions appear to be no different than a religion. Of course, they believe they understand all the pertinent factors affecting climate. And, if they really did, their actions would be reasonable.

I think davidmhoffer has it right. Wagner is from a University environment that no doubt believes the claim that AGW is settled science. He provided support for “the pagan enemy”. His only way to receive penance was to disavow his error. Now, he can proceed with his life/career.

Naturally, none of this has any bearing on the correctness of SB11. This is all a side show. It’s really unfortunate that climate science has gotten into this ridiculous position. What would be far better would be for Spencer/Dressler/Trenberth/etc. to sit down together and try to understand exactly why they have different views. And then, what actions would lead to a resolution. This would help the science progress. Wouldn’t that be nice!

Smokey:”Any fool can see that this is just an attempt by climate alarmists to keep control of the peer review propaganda machine.”

Hi Smokey,

I don’t put any weight into guesswork, and gut feelings.

Please read the Editor’s resignation letter. In it, he provides very detailed and explicit reasons for why he felt his journal failed to adequately vette a flawed publication. I presume if he felt coerced and harassed into resigning, he would have called out the bullies who allegedly did that, don’t you?.

You may have a “gut feeling” that he was coerced, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please feel to provide substantive evidence and proof that a global conspiracy of scientists coerced the Editor, and also please provide substantive evidence that there is a vast conspiracy by climate scientists to fake data and perpetrate a hoax on the world public regarding climate change. The so-called “climate gate” controversy was investigated by numerous agencies, commissions, panels, and the British parliament. It doesn’t pass the laugh test to speculate that all these panels and commissions are in on a vast, global plot to fake scientific data perpetrate a scientific hoax. And I can hardly take seriously, guesses and unsubstantiated allegation that Roy Spencer is the victim of a devious, wide-spread plot to keep him from publishing. I think Roy should probably do better science, I think he should make his publications more robust and convincing, and he should probably try to get published in reputable scientific journals that actually specialize in climate. Submitting his paper to an obscure, online open access journal that primarily deals with geography is going to raise eyebrows, no matter who the scientist is. Fair, or not, it certainly can raise doubts among reasonable people that Roy was trying to get his publication into the peer reviewed literature by taking and unorthodox and strange approach.

“If I remember right Dr. Spencer spent a couple of years reviewing the state of evolutionary
theory before making any claims. I wonder how much time Peter Stone has spent. I also suspect Mr. Stone is unaware of the problems with macro-evolution.”

There’s not really a problem with macro-evolution IMO. Not when it’s just rearrangements in genomic information across all life that ever was. I have a problem with where that genomic information came from in the first place. Information is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes form. Thus the information containted in the arrangement of matter that makes up everything from protozoa to primates has been in the universe since its birth. I can accept the possibility that all the matter and energy in the universe just poofed into existance like magic some 14 billion years ago but it’s very difficult to accept that the ordering of it was just accidental and it cooled and expanded it produced molecular machines of mind boggling complexity and some of those machines the filled the library of congress. It actually seems absurd to me to believe it could happen by accident.

I believe this should be added to the updates if it has not already been mentioned.
Friday that truth became apparent. Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper’s serious flaws. By resigning publicly in an editorial posted online, Wagner hopes that at least some of this damage can be undone.http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/09/spencer-faulty-science

Strange behavior indeed, Climate Science is redefining what peer review is and how it is conducted every day.

peter stone says:
September 4, 2011 at 9:38 am
“You may have a “gut feeling” that he was coerced, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please feel to provide substantive evidence and proof that a global conspiracy of scientists coerced the Editor, and also please provide substantive evidence that there is a vast conspiracy by climate scientists to fake data and perpetrate a hoax on the world public regarding climate change.”

So you don’t think people like Al Gore and James Hansen and organizations like Greenpeace coordinate their efforts and encourage people who share their beliefs to write letters to politicians and whatnot in an effort to sway policies?

OOOOOOOOOOOkay. Duly noted.

My take is that Wagner and Remote Sensing Journal in general got flooded with complaints and threats from all the usual suspects with vested emotional and professional interest in the CAGW narrative and it was decided by the owners of the journal that the only way to quench the flames was for Wagner to resign.

Hi Solomon,
Roy is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory, and has discounted the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. I am not at all surprised that he is one of the very few PhDs with training in climate who still doesn’t accept the widely-held scientific consensus on recent global warming. His contrarian (and even biblical) views on evolution and climate science I think speak directly to his credibility as a competent scientist.

————————-

Peter, What you say is absolute poppycock. You are just using ad hominem attacks against Dr Roy Spencer. You are as bad as BBC’s Richard Black. I would like to remind you that Einstein said that “God does not play dice” – does that speak to Einstein’s credibility as a scientist and regarding his Theory Of Relativity? No, of course not!

I see Smokey is ahead of me here. You claim as extraordinary the speculation by some that CAGW proponents have conspired to be journal gatekeepers, and you want extraordinary proof. The Climategate emails might not be the smoking gun, but they are extraordinary, and they clearly show some climate scientists conspiring to keep papers out and to control specific journals. What is also true is that this behaviour among climate scientists is not that extraordinary. All you have to do is follow the dialogue in any of your favorite blogs to see how the empowered climate elite constantly deride, marginalize and denigrate any and all who disagree.

An extraordinary claim, as pointed out by Smokey, is that rising CO2 will destroy us. As well, an extraordinary claim is that wind and solar will replace hydrocarbons. An extraordinary claim is that computer models, or some average of these models, represents truth. An extraordinary claim is that the IPCC is somehow the cream of the climatic intelligentsia. An extraordinary claim is that 350 ppm, or 400 ppm or 580 ppm or whatever is the tipping point past which armageddon is inevitable. You, sir, appear to have accepted Trenberth’s assertion that the null hypothesis has been turned on its head.

“Science is probabalistic, and the scientific method is not intended to proved 100% bullet-proof guarantees.” Very true. How does someone like you reconcile the late Schneider’s hyperbolic statement that the message needs to be stark and uncertainties downplayed? Do you believe that the scientific method is being properly followed in the multi-billion dollar climate alarmist industry? Are your favorite climate scientists being scientific? Or are they advocates?

The reasons given for Wolfgang’s resignation simply do not make sense – at least not in the real world, they don’t. In my mind, there are only two possibilities:

1. He was pushed by the magazine’s bosses. Action by the IPCC gatekeepers were making his position as editor untenable – there is already abundant evidence (especially in government departments and universities) that if you don’t heartily endorse the twin mantras of the AGW cult “carbon dioxide is evil and we must cleanse it from our atmosphere” and “natural climate cycles are either irrelevant or a myth and definitely not happening now”, then your job security is next to non-existent, or

2. Maybe he found a better job and used this as an excuse to leave early, so he could take up his new post.

I see we have some new alarmists seeking to smear Roy Spencer’s name, while simultaneously justifing dodgy commissions and pal reviews of scientific papers, The Stasi would be proud of you guys trying to stifle all alternative views which did not follow the party line. The trouble you guys face is that far too many real scientists and engineers – especially if they don’t work in government – know that the concept of: ‘science is settled’ is complete and utter BS.

The extensive and ongoing media exposure of the resignation of W. Wagner from Remote Sensing appears to be good news on all truly scientific fronts.

Congratulations to Remote Sensing.

I say congratulations because, to me, it appears that there was a successful active argument at Remote Sensing by both the Managing Editor and the “the editorial team” against the presumed disruption attempted by Editor-in-Chief Wolfgang Wagner.

That, if true, represents a very public Remote Sensing victory over of any attempt by presumed outside influences through Wagner to disrupt the Spencer and Braswell paper. The outside influences, if they exist and whoever they might be, can be easily be thought of as having the same manipulative nature as we saw exhibited by the Team in the climategate emails.

This is a win for independent thinking in climate science as it relates to the so-called consensus IPCC assessments and its so-called settled science.

I just followed your link. The statement about the letter of apology was penned by Trenberth himself. Very curious indeed. One gets the impression that Dr. Trenberth is a major player in this somehow and is feeling very threatened by SB11. Hmmmm.

Nice analysis, Dave. It inspired me to take a bit of a closer look myself. Dr. Wagner is a very prolific author – an analysis of the network of his coauthors might be very illuminating…. but I digress.

The importance of soil moisture in the global climate system has recently been underlined by the Global Climate Observing System (a joint undertaking of the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations, and the International Council for Science), which in 2010 endorsed soil moisture as an “essential climate variable.”

It is basically announcing a new data management network for soil moisture observations and is based at Dr. Wagner’s university. It is funded by the European Space Agency and is responsible for the data management of space-platform devices that were conceived through the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). It sounds a bit like the arrangement and mandate Dr. Spencer and UAH has with NASA.

The GEWEX website is located here: http://www.gewex.org/. You will note that the header describes GEWEX as: ”a core project of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), is an integrated program of research, observations, and science activities ultimately leading to the prediction of global and regional climate change.”

The article concludes with “The success of these efforts will depend upon long-term financial commitment. Fortunately, the positive contributions from international organizations such as WCRP/ GEWEX, the support of space agencies, and voluntary contributions from numerous individual networks are widespread, raising confidence in the scientific community’s willingness to realize an integrated soil moisture observing system.”.

A quick skim of the web sites and publications suggests that SB11 is a direct threat to the organizations and projects Dr. Wagner is associated with.

David Hoffer has outed Wagner’s reasons for resignation IMHO. Wagner’s a modeller, he failed to get the Spencer and Braswell paper retracted that doesn’t even (thank goodness) consult modellers, he needs to resign to ensure his future employment as a modeller. A bit of a fortunate coincidence for climate skeptics. I thought there had to be a logical reason somewhere. And I guess that the modelling community will be the very last to realize that AGW is dead.

Roger Knights has outed Peter Stone as a troll, by putting Peter’s quote from Roy’s blog into context.

“The so-called ‘climate gate’ controversy was investigated by numerous agencies, commissions, panels, and the British parliament. It doesn’t pass the laugh test to speculate that all these panels and commissions are in on a vast, global plot to fake scientific data perpetrate a scientific hoax.”

IMHO, you are incurably naive and credulous. Big, big money is involved, reputations are at stake, and careers are on the line, therefore there has not been one “investigation” in which any adversarial party has been permitted to ask questions. Michael Mann even had a hand in crafting which questions he was asked!

Every one of your “numerous agencies, commissions, panels” and yes, even Parliament have whitewashed the blatant scientific misconduct exposed in Climategate. None of them were willing to engage in any real investigation; they didn’t want to hear the truth. Rather, they all scrambled to close every ‘investigation’ as fast as possible, and without asking any critical questions. Those ‘investigations’ were deliberate coverups by people and institutions with too much to lose.

Peer Review by a few peers used by a journal was never intended to ensure the “given truth” of an article then published. Nor is the standard of “consensus” anywhere to be found in the application of the principles and practices of real ‘scientific method’ science – according to which the “CO2 = CAGW” Mantra has miserably failed, as has just been highlighted once again by Wagner’s own anti-scientific “logic” and histrionic antics!

This kind of acting-out, along with the utilization of other propaganda tactics such as repeating meaningless memes and the use of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” involving subrationally personalizing and demonzing a mere author or publisher – or indeed any speaker – analyzing an issue as a substitute or ‘proxy’ for dealing with the issue [see poor “peter stone’s” above standards for radical-cultist ‘credibility’] and Gramsci’s hegemonic infiltration of a society’s institutions with ideological controllists and assorted money grubbers, are what actually comprise ipcc Climate Science’s ‘method’.

Moreover, as indeed one very minimal sceptical scientific standard which certainly would have applied to the publication of S&B back in the pre-postmodern days before the reality of the Enlightenment was refuted by Stripbark Mann and the Warming Models, and when real scientific norms were rightfully holding sway, everyone knew that a journal would sometimes publish an article precisely because it was “controversial”!

Totalitarian thought controllists, a.k.a. ipcc “Climate Scientists” and “Progressives”, just get sooo upset when anyone doesn’t say exactly what they want them to say…snif.

The fact that he considers resigning as an appropriate response to a “controversial” paper being published in his journal is prima facie evidence that he was in way over his head to begin with. How childish can one get?

Robert E. Phelan says:
September 4, 2011 at 10:57 am
To get an idea of the sort of pressure that might be applied, I urge readers to take a quick look at one of Dr. Wagner’s listed publications A New International Network for in Situ Soil Moisture Data (available here: https://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/wd/download/journal/dorigo2011_EOS_92_17_ISMN.pdf) , a two page article requiring seven co-authors

———————————-

Robert E. Phelan,

Interesting you should point out Wagner’s work on soil moisture.

Professor Murray Salby’s upcoming paper on Earth’s carbon system dynamics will contain significant focus on soil moisture, based on the podcast of his talk on ‘Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources’ given at the Sydney Institute on 2 Aug 2011.

Drew: “I have been a skeptic for about 10 years. However, I wasn’t against the IPCC, UEA, NASA et. al because of the science, it was always the sensationalized media reports which drove me mad. ….It was because of these reasons that when reading how the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing quit, I at first was dutifully regarding his leaving as suspicious. His letter, in it’s entirety, is quite appropriate to my mind and was perfectly acceptable for his reasons to be seen as an act of decency given what he believes…..

So, as is sometimes the case, I went to real climate to read their summary of this debacle. The summary by the moderators and the interaction especially between RW, Simon Abington and Gavin clarified for me, some major flaws I always felt existed in CAGW theory. I don’t have time to work out all the details so I know at some point I have to trust someone is not lying to me — otherwise I’ll be searching forever for my shadow.

I need to read and understand the Spencer & Braswell because from what I’m reading, I have severe misapprehension that being skeptical is not right anymore.”
*****************************************************************************************************************

Hello Drew,
I agree that journalists – who are generally not trained in science – can craft headlines an articles that don’t faithfully render the science. That’s not the fault of scientists, and historically, scientists are too busy to make time to blab to journalists about the level of accuracy in their articles.

Keep in mind, media inaccuracy runs both ways. The alleged “Climate Gate” scandal was presented by some media as smoking gun proof that anthropogenic climate change was an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by a global conspiracy of climate scientists who faked data and with the devious collaboration of the world’s governments and most respected scientific organizations.

Evidently, this thread has similarly devolved into guesses and speculations about devious plots to keep Roy S. from publishing. I think my work here is done, when a thread devolves into unsubstantiated claims and guesses about global plots, we have clearly left the realm of science and rational inquiry.

I also agree that the public should be educated that science is probabilistic, and always involves inherent uncertainties. Even the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, after hundreds of years, are still active areas of research to further probe the exact mechanics that drive gravity and evolution, even if the broad outlines of gravity and evolution are firmly established as settled scientific facts.

Personally, instead of reading media accounts of science, I like to actually go to the websites of highly reputable and prestigious scientific organizations to read about the state of climate science. Surprisingly, those are where one can find the most accurate characterizations of climate science, and remaining uncertainties.

For example, I always liked this simple explanation from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences….

************************************************************************************************
“Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”

Source:
-U.S. National Academy of Sciences
-U.S. National Academy of Engineering
-U.S. National Research Council

Please provide substantive evidence and proof that (h/t peter stone) the AGW hypothesis is even the equivalent, let alone better than the null hypothesis. Please provide substantive evidence and proof that temperatures the last 60 years have risen more, and/or faster, than they have previously during the Holocene (60 years of course being the time period when human CO2 emissions became significant).

To be fair, its not the job of parliament to protect and promote the scientific process. It’s the job of parliament to speak for the electorate, and if they want religion, so be it. If they want fascism, communism, animalism or greenism, so be it. I guess the same is true in the US.

The problem is not the electorate, which generally makes good decisions when all the facts are presented. The problem is the endless gatekeeping and whitewashes resulting in a deliberate lack of transparency. With only one side’s ‘facts’ spoon-fed to the electorate, the outcome is predictable. Thank goodness for the internet.

Smokey says:
September 4, 2011 at 12:33 pm
The problem is not the electorate, which generally makes good decisions when all the facts are presented. The problem is the endless gatekeeping and whitewashes resulting in a deliberate lack of transparency. With only one side’s ‘facts’ spoon-fed to the electorate, the outcome is predictable. Thank goodness for the internet.

Quite right. We all saw what happened in the late 80s with the ozone hole scare. The so-called science was perfectly gate-kept by the scientists and the media. As a young university student at the time, I believed it was a real problem, as that was the only line being peddled — spoon fed to me.

Now, however, I know that the ozone science actually had substantial holes in it. At the time, though, no such questioning appeared in the popular media.

With AGW, I thank the stars for the internet, allowing good folks like Anthony Watts to provide a forum for skeptical science. Without the `net, AGW would have been ozone hole redux. I can only imagine how much further public policy would be had AGW been fully gate-kept like the ozone matter was.

“As for your doubts about evolution, evolution is one of the most well established scientific facts in the history of science.”

Perfectly true.

“Climate science, while not reaching the threshold of proof that evolution has, is widely and almost universally accepted by climate scientists worldwide, and is supported my multiple lines of evidence and decades of research.”

Here you fall down. I suspect you are conflating different theses into a single conclusion. The “fact” that climate science is almost universally accepted by climate scientists worldwide does not make it a robust theory like evolution. Even worse, your assertion that climate science is almost universally accepted is easily refuted. Out of the fifty or so scientists who actually investigate the effects of GHG’s and their feedbacks on global climate, the number of sceptics is not insignificant. I could name in addition to Spencer – Lindzen, Choi, Akasofu, Baliunus, Pielke sr, Scaffeta, Christy, Cazanave, Loehle, Tisdale, Svalgaard, Svensmark, Ball, Michaels, Singer. The only way you can get an “overwhelming majority” is by including scientists who aren’t actually climate scientists but nevertheless profess that AGW is the only true position – people like Paul Nurse (microbiologist and head of the Royal Society) and Martin Reese (former head of Royal Society). These people are no better than the soothsayers of old. They are likely the vicitms of groupthink.

Your last point was that climate science is “supported by multiple lines of evidence”. I presume by climate science you mean the AGW version, but what the multiple lines of evidence are, I am unsure. It certainly pales beside the multiple lines of CONSISTENT evidence that underpins evolution. IMO, I don’t regard issues such as “missing heat,” “missing tropical mid troposphere hotspots” and “lack of warming” and the research of Lindzen and Choi in radiation budgets, to be supporting evidence. Then there is the dendro divergence problem, and the satellite/thermometer divergence problem which elicited a paper by Parker which attempted to use wind as a proxy for temperature. Still in your mind, these are multiple lines of supporting evidence. What can I say? Some people never can be persuaded.

I just followed your link. The statement about the letter of apology was penned by Trenberth himself. Very curious indeed. One gets the impression that Dr. Trenberth is a major player in this somehow and is feeling very threatened by SB11. Hmmmm.

DITTO. Thanks for bringing that doozy to our attention. It surely seems most unprofessional, self-serving, and petty on the part of Wagner, Trenberth, Abraham, and Gleick

I’m also a bit floor by the attempts of some (including 3 of the 4 named above) to paint “Remote Sensing” as ‘primarily for geologists.’ I just took a quick look at their current issue, and the Jan 2011 issue and there are all sorts of papers about remote sensing various issues such as sea and land biota, UHI effect, deforestation, soil moisture content, etc. All things that just happen to be studied by ‘climate scientists.’

At this point it sure looks to me as if Wagner wanted to retract the paper but was unable to and so resigned instead in one of the most convoluted public unprofessional bizarre ways I’ve ever heard of. Talk about a very weird and unusual situation all the way around.

“The alleged ‘Climate Gate’ scandal was presented by some media as smoking gun proof that anthropogenic climate change was an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by a global conspiracy of climate scientists who faked data and with the devious collaboration of the world’s governments and most respected scientific organizations.”

The only inaccuracy in that statement is the word “alleged”. Apparently peter stone is not up to speed on the Climategate scandal. He should read The Hockey Stick Illusion to see for himself the shenanigans that go on in the climate pal review clique. [For a shorter version of pal-review fraud, see here.]

In the Harry_read_me file leaked along with the Climategate emails, we read: “Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

Thirteen years of invented temperature data, fabricated to push the alarmist agenda. And the emails themselves reveal intent to defraud the IRS, and deliberately conspiring to inflate the number of published papers, and other devious hijinks. Maybe AGW didn’t begin as “an elaborate hoax,” but it is certainly one now.

Peter stone also quotes the preposterous anti-science NAS statement: Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. What “strong evidence”??

Since the NAS hides out and refuses to respond, I challenge peter stone to provide empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, directly connecting the [very mild] warming trend since the LIA with the use of fossil fuels. peter stone either knows that no such evidence exists, or he is simply winging it and hoping no one notices. If there were direct evidence that fossil fuel use was causing rising temperatures as is claimed, we would hear it trumpeted 24/7/365. But all we hear about are the outputs of always-inaccurate computer models – which are not evidence.

I sincerely hope this peter stone is not the same peter stone at MIT, which would be strong evidence that tenure trumps competence. When it comes to MIT I will defer to Prof Richard Lindzen, who has probably forgotten more about climate science than peter stone will ever learn.

I am busy reading up about the difference between cosmic and solar rays, apart from the origin which is pretty obvious. I came across this snippet on Wikipedia: –

…Eugene Parker realised that the heat flowing from the Sun in Chapman’s model and the comet tail blowing away from the Sun in Biermann’s hypothesis had to be the result of the same phenomenon, which he termed the “solar wind”.[7][8] Parker showed that even though the Sun’s corona is strongly attracted by solar gravity, it is such a good conductor of heat that it is still very hot at large distances. Since gravity weakens as distance from the Sun increases, the outer coronal atmosphere escapes supersonically into interstellar space. Furthermore, Parker was the first person to notice that the weakening effect of the gravity has the same effect on hydrodynamic flow as a de Laval nozzle: it incites a transition from subsonic to supersonic flow.[9]

Opposition to Parker’s hypothesis on the solar wind was strong. The paper he submitted to the Astrophysical Journal in 1958 was rejected by two reviewers. It was saved by the editor Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (who later received the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics)…

To those who have been attempting to use a belief in a ‘creator’ (call it what you will) as supposedly being evidence of a lack of ability or credibility of Dr. Spencer or others wrt this particular paper, Wagners resignation, or science literacy in general, or who’ve been denigrating such beliefs as ‘unscientific,’ I have to ask if you have considered one really basic key aspect of this issue. I suspect the answer is a resounding ‘NO.’ Bear with me for a little bit of necessary set up to get to the question.

Science is a tool we have devised to remove human error from the equation and use empirical evidence to TEST various hypothesis, thereby divining how things really work. At this point in time, we have no way to test for either the existence or absense of a ‘creator.’ We can, of course, study things such as the theory of evolution (and I use the scientific meaning of theory here, not the common meaning), the length of time the Earth has existed, etc., all things which rather soundly refute a literal interpretation of some religious writings – but we have no way to test anything about the existence or lack there of, of a ‘creator.’

Science can certainly lean one towards believing that such a being/force is unlikely – but as science cannot (at least so far) study or measure the issue in any way, science has nothing to do with a belief one way or the other on this issue.

So, have you ever considered that logically and scientifically, a belief that such a ‘creator’ does not exist is every bit as much a leap of faith as a belief in such a ‘creator?’ Which basically means that the very people who ridicule others as unscientific for believing in a creator, are themselves every bit as unscientific for believing that such a being/force does not exist.

Smokey says (September 4, 2011 at 12:33 pm): “The problem is not the electorate, which generally makes good decisions when all the facts are presented. The problem is the endless gatekeeping and whitewashes resulting in a deliberate lack of transparency. With only one side’s ‘facts’ spoon-fed to the electorate, the outcome is predictable.”

Colin in BC says (September 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm): “Quite right. We all saw what happened in the late 80s with the ozone hole scare.”

I have to disagree, respectfully, with Smokey and Colin. Any voter who doesn’t see his own government as his worst natural enemy–and fails to vote as if it is–is asking for everything he gets. Smokey’s “gatekeepers” and “whitewashers” are there because we put them there, no doubt with the best of intentions but with predictable results. We voted in Big Government with our eyes wide open, forgetting that the more government can do for us, the more it can do to us. Businessmen and scientists, no dummies, discovered they could make more money sucking the taxpayer’s teat than by doing real work, so now we have Big Government, Big Business, and Big Science collaborating in an unholy trinity against the little taxpayer, and doing quite well at it.

I agree with most all of what you wrote. But I think there’s more to it than that. Certain special interests have learned to game the system, in cahoots with politicians.

I am never presented with someone who would be my choice as a representative. Not being one to just throw my vote away on a hopeless write-in candidate, I just vote for the person closest to my views.

I don’t agree that I’m getting the government I deserve. I certainly don’t deserve this one. But I agree with you that government is inherently evil, and that less is better. I would be happy to go back to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, and forget all the subsequent amendments and Supreme Court decisions. They all caused more problems than they solved.

For the record, I was specifically responding to the last sentence in Smokey’s post, the part I bolded, which read, “Thank goodness for the internet.” I’ll leave the first portion of his post to the political scientists.

[Dr.] Roy [Spencer] is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory, and has discounted the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. […] His contrarian (and even biblical) views on evolution and climate science I think speak directly to his credibility as a competent scientist.

You probably do not know, but in fact Sir Isaac Newton spent most of his time contemplating on alchemy (and writing about a million words on the topic).

But now, that you are informed, you are left with only two alternatives (provided of course you stick honestly to your stance on what constitutes a valid foundation for judging credibility & competence):

1. Dismiss physics altogether as something based on the notions of an incompetent lunatic.
2. Endorse Alchemy as a legitimate science.

“Appeal to authority isn’t always a logical fallacy when the authority really is qualified. Particularly when:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.”

You remind me of the Church vs. Galileo, and also about some old hack writing about Paradigm Shifts.

Have you heard about that story involving Semmelweis and puerperal fever? You might want to study the history of witchcraft and voodoo as well – just so that we need not repeat the same mistakes again…

The Pielke peer posting is spot on. The Team is trying to build a case to defund him, place the satellite measurements in more secure hands. Lysenko would be proud of these guys. The Trenbeth et all tirade offers no science whatsoever; they simply attack and slur.

Enviro-communist: These doesn’t really care about the environment per se, it’s just a means to and end. Total and absolute authority to make the most global of decisions, everything else is moot, like people’s lives, what with the communist precautionary principle being the reason that was used to off tens and tens of millions of people during the last hundred years. They try and think about everything to, in their reality, assert the best possible tactical advantage to get to the throne of power and subdue others or keep it they feel they’re already their.

Enviro-STASI: They don’t really care all that much about mother earth’s environment, they are more interested in the controlling of a environment, any type of environment will pretty much do. They just want to know what people say and does and when and how and how it can be used against those people for their own financial gains. Like the self-proclaimed “guardians of true science” a.k.a. bloggers without a real amount of visitors, or organizations who rather prefer to act the lap dog to control stuff at the “evil” corporations themselves.

Enviro-Nazi: They are more interested in being the sole entity that can assert power. They don’t care about how they attain the feeling of being in power, the cause is moot. They’re the ones who would run to Al Gore’s defense claiming he was right even if he claimed to be the supreme God entity of planet Venus, as in they don’t think before they act.

Enviro-Fascismo: The only type of green socialist that incorporate the corporate world as preferably owners, and, in fact they’re are so in love with making the money they feel it would be best, since they’re, at least in their world, the bestests at running green companies so it would be rather the bestests ever if they also were the authority in the political policy making department on how everyone should live their life, less themselves of course, and preferably also on how and where all else should spend their money.

Enviro-nut: The general crowd of fanatics that goes ape shit over anything that is properly hyped up to be against, doesn’t really matter what it is so long it has appropriate media attention and at least could possibly be connected to the environment. Proof is based on whom-had-most-media-coverage says what and that they said it and it was in their general line of reasoning.

Common denominator of all types and states is that they all want our money, time, energy, resources, to, apparently, save us from our self.

,,,
I have to disagree, respectfully, with Smokey and Colin. Any voter who doesn’t see his own government as his worst natural enemy–and fails to vote as if it is–is asking for everything he gets. Smokey’s “gatekeepers” and “whitewashers” are there because we put them there, no doubt with the best of intentions but with predictable results. We voted in Big Government with our eyes wide open…

I never recall being given the opportunity to add instructions to my vote. Never. Had I been given the opportunity, I certainly would expect a different government that what we’re currently enduring.

“Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”

And yet the earth has been cooling for the last dozen years. Tell us all, what human activities would explain that?

Or have you left the arena without a plausible explanation? (Perhaps you’re hoping the “authorities and experts” you quote will eventually get back to us on that one?)

The hit piece from Trenberth,Abraham & Gleick is perhaps the most despicable bit of tripe I have come across in all my years dumpster diving through this virtual abbatoir of laughable “climate science”. Given the authors it is also a very large example of the pot and the kettle. I particularly liked their reference to the new paper from “Sluggo” Santer, which isn’t even available behind a paywall and has as the only available abstract this highly informative bit of nonsense.

Models CAN produce 10-year periods with little warming! Maybe they actually name some which are operational in the IPCC repetoire which have done so for the last fifteen years. It’s hard to argue with such compelling logic. Not content with one phantom reference, they then go on to another prospective masterwork, the much anticipated “debunking” from Andy “the Devastator” Dessler. At least S&B didn’t receive their”impressive hype” until after their work was actually available. IMHO, Andy had better be able to demonstrate at least an order of magnitude leap in the quality of his work if he is going to come close to fulfilling the expectations that have been created for this piece.

“Folks need to take a little more times sometimes to understand what they comment on – a case in point those who took offense at Spencer’s comments about ‘an engineer’ … had those folks actually read the article Spencer’s is referencing they would have found out exactly WHO (no, he wasn’t disparaging engineers on the whole) that engineer was:”

Dave Springer says:
September 4, 2011 at 7:34 am

It sure looked like Spencer was implying that engineers aren’t qualified to critque analysis of datasets to identify and characterized feedbacks. That’s actually a large part of what many engineers do for a living. Mechanical engineers are no exception.

“John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of St Thomas’s school of engineering in Minnesota who criticised the Spencer paper upon its publication”

Spencer could have, but didn’t, focus on Abraham’s experience and track record, but instead did a slothful and unbecoming thing by denigrating engineers in general. Obviously Spencer doesn’t have a clue about what engineers actually do in their jobs else he would have known that analysis of datasets to tease out what’s actually happening the real world with complex systems of all sorts is a large part of what they do and unlike unaccountable academics like Spencer they suffer more than embarassment when they get something wrong. Engineers aren’t in the business of publishing abstract papers where there’s no financial or physical harm done if they get it wrong.

“Look up Abraham – who he is and what he stands for”

That’s what Spencer should have done before commenting on it.

Dave – did you look up Abraham? Did you check out who he is and what he stands for? And I don’t mean his criticism of Spencer’s paper?

“John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate-change skeptics, is pulling together a “Climate Rapid Response Team,” which so far has more than three dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.

“This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

“We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.””

The American Geophysical Union distanced itself from Abraham’s and his group – yet here he is, arm in arm with his comrades – attacking Spencer’s paper by every means possible EXCEPT through NORMAL peer review channels

The hit piece from Trenberth,Abraham & Gleick is perhaps the most despicable bit of tripe I have come across in all my years dumpster diving through this virtual abbatoir of laughable “climate science”.

From the tone and style of the parts quoted by Pielke, it now seems likely to me that the noxious poster Spencer banned, Obscurity, was Trenberth, as Spencer suspected and inquired. I thought that couldn’t be, because Obscurity was such a jerk.
Incidentally, after issuing his excommunication, Spencer let Obscurity continue to post.

I think my work here is done, when a thread devolves into unsubstantiated claims and guesses about global plots, we have clearly left the realm of science and rational inquiry.

So by your own admission the purpose of your contributions to this thread is to ensure that it leaves the realm of science and rational inquiry. What would you like for desert, pickled gherkins and cream? There is a rather sad irony in that admission, Peter. It says rather too much about motive and the man.

Where Andy makes the candid statement in writing (as of September 4, 2011)

Atmospheric Chemistry
“Long ago, I spent most of my time working on the chemistry of the stratosphere. I haven’t worked on this subject since the late 1990s, and I realized the other day that I’ve forgotten just about everything I knew about it.”.

Everybody and his brother should copy or take a screenshot of his “know nothing”
self assessment in his Texas A & M bio before it gets morphed into something much
more indicative that he wants to be considered a heavy weight climate science
commentator/researcher.

Kiehl found … that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model.

Kieh says in his paper:
”One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy?

Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.”

And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
”These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.”

And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.

Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”

It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.

In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.

Therefore, each model emulates a different climate system. But the Earth has only one climate system. Therefore, at most only one of the models emulates the climate system which exists, and it is probable that none of them do.

As near as I can tell – each climate model simply “cooks the books” – with an adjustment to “total anthropogenic forcing” – different in each one – that allows these widely disparate models to all come up with same conclusion …

peter stone
Re: Roy is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory . . .”
Resorting to ad hominem attacks of association and libel you obviously have nothing to say on the scientific validity of Spencer’s research. You further show comprehension of the principles of intelligent design. Your actions are contemptible and destructive of the integrity of science and of civil society.

Dessler and Trenberth believe causation between temperature and clouds only flows in one direction :

Temperature Change => Cloud Change,

whereas we and others believe (and have demonstrated) it flows in both directions,

Temperature Change Cloud Change.

. . . Sufficiently positive cloud feedback could cause a global warming Armageddon. Sufficiently negative cloud feedback could more than cancel out any other positive feedbacks in the climate system, and relegate manmade global warming to the realm of just an academic curiosity. . . .
The existence of very low statistical correlation coefficients in all of the previous studies attempting to diagnose feedback in the traditional manner is, by itself, evidence of this effect. For example, the data Dessler analyzed had a correlation coefficient of about 0.1 (as far as I can tell, anyway…for some reason he chose not to list this very basic statistic in his paper. Why did the peer reviewers not catch such an obvious omission?). . . .
And if you try to diagnose feedback from satellite data like Dessler has, it will usually give the illusion of positive feedback — even if negative feedback is present.. . .
The very fact that the 20+ climate models the IPCC tracks still span just as wide a range of feedbacks as climate models did 20 years ago is evidence by itself that the climate community still can’t demonstrate what the real cloud feedbacks in the climate system are. Otherwise, they would tune their models accordingly.

The disconcerting conclusion is that global warming-related policy decisions are being guided by models which still have no way to be tested in their long-term predictions.

REPLY: From Anthony I won’t open this link, do yo have another? I get this:

This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect securely to esg.llnl.gov:8443, but we can’t confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site’s identity can’t be verified.

Obscurity popped up at Stoat’s little schoolyard shortly after to claim brownie points. Looks far too juvenile to be Trenberth, ego size and type mismatch. Mind you there’s a severe lack of regular expression in all this so who knows :-)

I’ve had a number of link-containing replies to this threa disappear into the æther, so I will just have to give up on retyping them yet again.

However, when the thread descends to this sort of pseudo-philosophy:

So, have you ever considered that logically and scientifically, a belief that such a ‘creator’ does not exist is every bit as much a leap of faith as a belief in such a ‘creator?’ Which basically means that the very people who ridicule others as unscientific for believing in a creator, are themselves every bit as unscientific for believing that such a being/force does not exist.

it’s probably time to cut losses and go elsewhere and find sensible people with whom to speak.

Really, it’s “unscientific for believing that such a being/force does not exist”? Hopefully, because there are so many armchair scientists here who have tried to tell the professionals how their profession works, someone at least should be able to figure out why this is a completely bogus statement.

peter stone
Re: Roy is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory . . .”
———————————-
I have to laugh every time I see this, S&B11 is not a paper on creationism in case anyone hasn’t noticed. If he were to run for office, ok, this is a valid area to include in his total construct, but this is a scientific paper and the science can be addressed and a rebuttal formulated. This is the beauty of “science”, that it is much less subjective than politics or policy decisions.

Motives for writing a paper are irrelevant. Just because Dr. Spencer’s beliefs are different than someone else’s, the satellite data don’t magically change; unlike highly subjective model assumptions.

When you have an editor who objects that the reviewers all shared some “alleged” skeptical notions, what does he propose, only select reviewers who disagree with the paper and would likely reject it? Can a group become so deluded they can’t see what they are doing. They block any paper that brings the IPCC conclusions into questions from the major climate journals and then frown upon a “lesser” journals that they weren’t policing when a paper gets published.

What Mr. Wagner has done is appalling. He has tried to discredit a scientific paper with a publicity stunt with no coherent challenges to the science itself, only vague references to blog comments and “water cooler” criticism.

I am continuously shocked at the behavior and failing of basic logic in the academia and editorial boards.

“So, the dirty little secret is that there is no way to test the models’ long-term warming predictions with short-term data. We can see a big ‘disconnect’ with short term data, but it does not necessarily disprove the models’ long term predictions.” Dr. Roy Spencer

Later in the 1670’s, Newton became very interested in theology. He studied Hebrew scholarship and ancient and modern theologians at great length, and became convinced that Christianity had departed from the original teachings of Christ. He felt unable to accept the current beliefs of the Church of England, which was unfortunate because he was required as a Fellow of Trinity College to take holy orders. Happily, the Church of England was more flexible than Galileo had found the Catholic Church in these matters, and King Charles II issued a royal decree excusing Newton from the necessity of taking holy orders! Actually, to prevent this being a wide precedent, the decree specified that, in perpetuity, the Lucasian professor need not take holy orders. (The current Lucasian professor is Stephen Hawking.)

I don’t see anyone whining about that when they discuss Newtonian physics. – Anthony

5 Sept: ABC: Stephan Lewandowsky: Climate sceptic science: read with caution
Stephan Lewandowsky is a Winthrop Professor and Australian Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia. His research addresses the distinction between scepticism, cynicism, and denial.
Although most so-called climate “sceptics” prudently avoid peer review – preferring the internet as an outlet for their pseudo-science – very occasionally a “sceptic” paper does appear in a peer-reviewed journal…
The answer appeared two months ago, when it became public that Dr Soon has been lusciously funded by the fossil-fuel industry for the last two decades: Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, the American Petroleum Institute, the Koch brothers, and all the other usual suspects. (By the way, coal-fired power plants emit mercury.)…
Thankfully, Dr Spencer has made every effort to clarify his political agenda. His book Fundanomics explains why the free market “should be celebrated by all social classes” and also reveals the “fallacies” which allow governments to “get away” with “tricks” such as “job programs”.
Yes, jobs programs are a “trick”…
It is not surprising, therefore, that the publication of Spencer’s paper in Remote Sensing was met with a storm of publicity.
Actually, it was not publicity.
It was propaganda…
In the case of Dr Spencer, the flaws of his paper will be detailed in a peer-reviewed rebuttal by Professor Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, which is scheduled for publication in Geophysical Research Letters – a journal with expertise in actual climate science – on Tuesday, September 6.
Alas, those flawed papers matter cognitively.
They matter cognitively because regardless of how thoroughly every single “sceptic” paper to date has been debunked within the scientific community, we know from much research in cognitive science that people cannot update their memories as easily as science can correct itself, when they are misinformed. Once people have acquired misinformation, they find it difficult to discount it even if they acknowledge and believe a subsequent correction…
Ideology, subterfuge, and propaganda. That is all there is to climate denial.ww.abc.net.au/unleashed/2870492.html

I urge everybody to read Roger Pielke’s piece linked in the Sept 4 update. The Trenberth et al article is breathtaking in its arrogance and nastiness. It is on a par with some of nasty comments by the know nothings at Roy Spencer’s site. It is sad and disappointing.

“we know from much research in cognitive science that people cannot update their memories as easily as science can correct itself, when they are misinformed. Once people have acquired misinformation, they find it difficult to discount it even if they acknowledge and believe a subsequent correction…”
—————————————————–
Exactly. This is THE reason for Wagner’s resignation. The public do not spend time reading thousands of blog comments much less scientific literature including all its comments and rebuttal papers. What was done here was to combat the “skeptics propaganda” in the news headlines by creating their own plethora of headlines about the resignation in protest. This is the propaganda you are pointing out and it is far from balanced.

This Dessler paper is not even out yet and is already used as a DeFacto repudiation of S&B11. This paper may or may not point out major flaws in S&B11 but I tell you this, the Dessler paper will dominate the news headlines as totally discrediting S&B11 and you will have to dig very deep on the internet to read the forthcoming response from S&B.

I just wonder if any courtesy will extended by Geophysical Research Letters for S&B to defend themselves as they weren’t allowed to publish there in the first place (not enough of Wagner’s skeptical reviewers); oddly no rebuttal was presented to Remote Sensing.

This is not about the science as much is it is about maintaining public perception of the debate.

You appear to be completely in denial. The sceptics you malign are clearly and overwelmingly winning the argument on the basis of the actual observation. The high sensitivity models have less chance of being right than you have of winning the lottery.

Sir,
It is increasingly obvious what you have done and why you have done it. You stand at the cross roads of a precipitous moment in history. The case for CAGW is in tatters. With your resignation in the face of obvious peer pressure, you have managed to set it aflame, and your career with it. You have the opportunity for redemption. Will you take it?

Will you go down in history as the man who attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of an entire planet by attempting to assert that computerized theoretical models should take precedence over actual observations? Will you join the ranks of those in history who would have had us believe the earth to be flat, the sun to circle the earth, blood letting to be a miracle cure, and that witches float?

Or will you be a “real man” and speak the truth? Tell the real story, tell it loud and tell it publicly?

CAGW is a farce, and always has been. A century from now, it will be just another odious chapter in history showing how far those who grasp for power and prestige will go to further their personal agendas. When your children’s children read those history books, what will they think about you? Will they read about their grandfather who was a coward and a shill?

Or will they read about a man who made a terrible mistake. And then set it right?

Bernard J.: I do not agree with your position on the Wagner matter, but you’re right about the spellings Occam, Ockham, Hockham, etc. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people “correct” other people who wrote “Ockham’s Razor.” I have a theory about it: “Occam” has a science-fiction or futuristic look, so it appeals to certain kinds of people, such as S-F fans. They think anyone who writes “Ockham” is an ignoramus who has heard the name and “naively” taken it to be an old English name. Unfortunately for them, it is an old English name.

I forgot to say: “Occam” is not actually new. AFAIK, it is the Latin spelling or close to the Latin spelling. Maybe it was revived in the 20th century by Russell or someone like that – I’m just guessing.

@ Rational Debate says:
September 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
To those who have been attempting to use a belief in a ‘creator’ (call it what you will) as supposedly being evidence of a lack of ability or credibility of Dr. Spencer or others wrt this particular paper, Wagners resignation, or science literacy in general, or who’ve been denigrating such beliefs as ‘unscientific,’ I have to ask if you have considered one really basic key aspect of this issue. I suspect the answer is a resounding ‘NO.’
—
At this point in time, we have no way to test for either the existence or absence of a ‘creator.’

Your first fundamental mistake is that you think yourself as logical, when in fact you’re compartmentalizing. There are no tests which can determine something which doesn’t exist. This logic is bait and switch to try and prove something which you don’t want to reject. If you have a null hypothesis, e.g. God exists, and you run your tests and find you can’t prove he is there, then that doesn’t mean ‘maybe he is there, we just haven’t found it yet’. What that means, is you have nothing to base his existence on. The fact that we are alive and talking, is not evidence of any sort that god exists, because anything equally preposterous could be claimed as to why we exist. We could be the off-shoot of another life-force, midichlorians are the universal energy but we can just never measure it, but they are there, it’s sufficiently ambiguous like ‘god’.

Rational Debate says:
We can, of course, study things such as the theory of evolution (and I use the scientific meaning of theory here, not the common meaning), the length of time the Earth has existed, etc., all things which rather soundly refute a literal interpretation of some religious writings – but we have no way to test anything about the existence or lack there of, of a ‘creator.’
—

Because you can’t create a project around something which doesn’t exist in the first place. Contemplating whether or not god exists is exactly the same as contemplating any other unsubstantiated preponderance.

Rational Debate says:
Science can certainly lean one towards believing that such a being/force is unlikely – but as science cannot (at least so far) study or measure the issue in any way, science has nothing to do with a belief one way or the other on this issue.
—

Science most certainly does shape some peoples beliefs. Depending on whether or not evidence and rational thinking is your basis for belief. But being taught science from a young age, and developing the mental capacity to expand on mechanisms required to differentiate whether a certain statistical equation is more fitting than another required rope learning. It’s inherently complicated and requires a lot of self doubt to keep rebuilding the things you thought you once knew, because science changes to new findings e.g. proteins can guide other proteins to form new tertiary structures, which was hotly debated until and never thought possible, now it’s known that this is how Alzheimer’s and bovine encephalopathy, scabies etc are partly influenced.

Rational Debate says:
So, have you ever considered that logically and scientifically, a belief that such a ‘creator’ does not exist is every bit as much a leap of faith as a belief in such a ‘creator?’ Which basically means that the very people who ridicule others as unscientific for believing in a creator, are themselves every bit as unscientific for believing that such a being/force does not exist.
—

I did contemplate it, as I read what you wrote. It isn’t a 50/50 chance because you can make something up that’s convoluted and I can’t prove it’s wrong because it’s beyond any measurement either quantitative or qualitative. In this instance, anybody who believes that it is unscientific to not believe in god, is not a critical thinker and severely lacks the processing ability to methodically evaluate reality.

1. There is nothing to measure
2. There is no provided principle based on any scientific theory to suspect the existence of a ‘creator’
3. God as an omnipotent, omniscient being is almost entirely defined as a ‘god of the gaps’. Believing in god just takes up room where science has not adequately uncovered another piece of the puzzle of life.
4. Trying to input that ‘god’ has any scientific case, is to not understand that the believe in ‘god’ adds nothing more to our elucidation of reality.

One may call me paranoid, but I fear that this may be the start of a new inquisition where Wagner either offered himself or was constrained to be the pawn sacrifice. I think that there will be less publications that differ from the IPCC “guideline” in the near future, especially from authors that don’t have the adequate reputation yet.

“Dave – did you look up Abraham? Did you check out who he is and what he stands for? And I don’t mean his criticism of Spencer’s paper?”

No. It wasn’t important. There are a million Abrahams willing to say Spencer’s work is wrong and all them without anything substantive behind the claim. That said, the fact that he’s a dedicated CAGW propagandist ringleader actually does speak to his credilbilty while the fact that he’s a professor of engineering does not. Spencer should have pointed out the former not the latter.

Dessler is the best “the team” can come up with to dispute Spencer? An Aggie? Aggies are usually the butt of jokes in Texas. To be fair, if you want a degree in animal husbandry there’s not finer university for it but atmospheric physics? ROFLMAO

“As for your doubts about evolution, evolution is one of the most well established scientific facts in the history of science.”

It’s a narrative not a fact. A just-so story. Get a clue.

All life is deeply related. That’s a fact.

That the relationship was established by common descent from a univeral common ancestor is not a fact. It’s the best explanation of the facts. But “best” is my opinion. Others are entitled to their own opinions.

Axioms I accept, among others, are law of cause & effect and law of entropy.

I also accept, although not as axiom, the big bang theory & the standard model.

To whit: we can trace back the unfolding of the universe to a point where size & density reach infinity. Infinities are undefined. This is a point where physics can go no farther.

So, from a pure physics perspective, the observable universe was born from an undefined source. By law of entropy the newborn universe contained all the order (I prefer to call it “information” instead or “order”) that is present today. By law of cause and effect the unfolding from then to now happened in predetermined manner. So essentially it’s the clockwork universe that Albert Einstein described.

If you choose to believe the initial order in the universe was just a matter of accident that’s your business. Just don’t ask me to swallow that notion. I’m an engineer and find it patently absurd that such an intricate clockwork universe happened without design. Machines have origins and in every case where the origin can be determined without ambiguity there was an intelligent agency involved in its design and construction. Therefore, the claim that intricate machines can materialize without intelligent agency involved is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support the extraordinary claim that complex machines just happen without purposeful agency.

So while it’s true that we have a sample size of exactly one for unambiguous origin of complex machines (human intelligent agency) it remains that the single sample we have is one of intelligent design. Be sure to let know when you have a sample that supports your claim. In the meantime I must accept the evidence we actually have in hand. Objective people go wherever the evidence leads and in this case, at this point in time, it only leads to intelligent design.

5 Sept: News.com.au: AAP: Climate modelling is improving – experts
AS questions continue to be raised about the science of climate change three experts have explained how modelling helps to predict what temperature rises will do to the planet.
Dave Griggs, from the Monash Sustainability Institute, says one of the best ways to sum up uncertainty over modelling was former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s famous statement about “known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns”.
“There are things in the climate system, because of the way our climate models show us, that we know could happen … but we’re not yet good enough to say this is going to happen in 20 years from now,” Prof Griggs said on Monday during an online briefing organised by the Australian Science Media Centre.
Climate models were better at predicting some things than others, largely due to the spatial scale involved, he said…
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research’s John Church says virtually all climate data is shared among scientists worldwide…
Prof Griggs agrees. Twenty years on from the first climate models the observations have started to prove predictions correct, he said.http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/climate-modelling-is-improving-experts/story-e6frfku0-1226129848473

sorepaw says:
September 4, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Kevin Trenberth has now boasted in public that he got the editor of a scientific journal fired, for allowing the publication of an article whose author displeases Kevin Trenberth.

Do you have a link for this? I would like to cite it in another argument.

Gents, you’re wasting time with the religious stuff. There is no direct scientific evidence for a creator. Assuming a creator by inference solves nothing as it simply begs who or what made the creator. Religion does not belong in science. Privately what one chooses to believe is a deeply personal choice. Please keep religion out of a science blog – it simply does not fit. It has taken man a long time to separate science from religion – please do not go back to the dark ages.

The whole problem with CAGW is its religious nature. People choose to see evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming when science has yet to understand all the other possible causes.

I’m encouraged to the Roger Pielkes Sr. and Jr. are evidently widely admired on this blog. However, it’s odd that he the Pielke’s fundamentally do completely agree that humans are “significantly” and “predominantly” effecting the climate (their words); that human caused climate change is “real” (their word) even if they have legitimate scientific opinions about the magnitude of CO2 contributions versus other human contributions to changes on climate, and on mitigation measures to reduce the “real” and “significant” (their words) human impact on climate. Kudos to the Pielkes for recognizing that human impacts to climate is “real” and “significant”, and for their contributions to legitimate scientific debate.

-Roger Pielke, Sr :”HUMANS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”

-Roger Pielke, Sr : “THE EVIDENCE OF A HUMAN FINGERPRINT ON THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL CLIMATE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers”

-Roger Pielke, Sr.:“THE EVIDENCE PREDOMINANTLY SUGGESTS THAT HUMANS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, AND THUS CLIMATE, in a variety of diverse ways beyond the effects of human emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2. Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human climate forcings in altering regional and global climate and their effects on predictability at the regional scale.”

-Roger Pielke, Jr. : “HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND REQUIRES ATTENTION BY POLICY MAKERS to both mitigation and adaptation – but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us for decades and longer.”

One may call me paranoid, but I fear that this may be the start of a new inquisition where Wagner either offered himself or was constrained to be the pawn sacrifice. I think that there will be less publications that differ from the IPCC “guideline” in the near future, especially from authors that don’t have the adequate reputation yet.

I think it’s going the other way, away from Totalitarian Propaganda as a substutute for real science and for all individually based rational thought, including free thought’s economic/survivalistic benefits. But here in the U.S. we have to vote out the Obama Communists, get our shop back in order, and back Israel to the hilt.

It’s my belief that the Totalitarians and associated Parasites are going to have a hard time making the process of Human Evolution which led to the bona fide miracle of individual free thought go backward.

Btw, in my schema the larger, infinite “Universe” never “began”. It’s always been there, and there isn’t anything “outside” of it. As a corrolary, “nothing” can’t “explode”, although there can certainly be explosions within the Universe. Part of the miracle is that the “Universe” has “created” an entity that wants to – and can – understand the Universe, and in more than a “scientific” way. Once you accept eternal Mystery as in fact a feature of the Universe leading us always toward it via our amazing capacity and continuous desire to wonder, things tend to calm down regarding one’s place and meaning. The entity can’t be seperated from its “Creator”, and you/I would never even want to stop wondering about it, as compared with finally finding “Truth” or “God” – that wouldn’t be any fun. Amen.

Drew says:
September 5, 2011 at 12:45 am
@ Rational Debate says:
September 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
To those who have been attempting to use a belief in a ‘creator’ (call it what you will) as supposedly being evidence of a lack of ability or credibility of Dr. Spencer or others wrt this particular paper, Wagners resignation, or science literacy in general, or who’ve been denigrating such beliefs as ‘unscientific,’ I have to ask if you have considered one really basic key aspect of this issue. I suspect the answer is a resounding ‘NO.’
—
At this point in time, we have no way to test for either the existence or absence of a ‘creator’.

I agree – this is something I’ve stressed in similar discussions many times.
Sometime in the future, we may know all that we can know about our universe. Assuming we then “know it all”, the existence or non-existence of a “creator” will only then be a certainty.

Unless, of course, the “creator” manifests itself in a manner than can not be denied scientifically.

Otherwise, the existence or non-existence of said “creator” can only be a belief held by either perspective. There may be data or information that supports either position, but proof – not at this time.

To assume that anything that someone thinks, says, or does is worthless because they either believe or do not believe in a “creator” is extremely shallow minded, in my opinion.

anybody who believes that it is unscientific to not believe in your true self, is not a critical thinker and severely lacks the processing ability to methodically evaluate reality.

1. There is nothing to measure
2. There is no provided principle based on any scientific theory to suspect the existence of ‘your true self’
3. Your true self as a potent, scient being is almost entirely defined as ‘your true self of the gaps’. Believing in your true self just takes up room where science has not adequately uncovered another piece of the puzzle of life.
4. Trying to input that ‘your true self’ has any scientific case, is to not understand that the belief in ‘your true self’ adds nothing more to our elucidation of reality.

Mark me, it tells nothing about your body. That can be measured, analysed, seen, touched, etc. But it can as well be an empty bag with no one living inside, no awareness, no consciousness, no true responsibility, nothing. Those qualities can’t even be defined, much less verified using the scientific method.

As far as science is concerned, the actions of your body can emulate those of a sentient being as closely as possible, it proves nothing. You can’t even show us a single example of such a being the behavior of your body could be compared against in the first place.

Of course we still believe firmly in the existence of persons (as opposed to mere undead human bodies), but that’s because we have the chance to get acquainted with them, which process is utterly alien to science. The proper attitude during such an event is inconsistent with a scientific stance. Just give it a try with a girl (or guy) and you’ll see what I mean (but be prepared to get some unwelcome treat in return).

Believe it or not, it does hurt the feelings of a girl being treated as an object of your studies, not to mention controlled experiments. If you are not extremely cautious, you could even slip into a criminal case.

Personal relationships are always constitute an entangled mess of the subject–object problem and any effort to set it straight just destroys the acquaintance. For in such a relationship it is always the case that not only you acquire knowledge about the other one, but you yourself also get known, often in depths unexplored for yourself so far.

The important thing for you to comprehend is that people who believe in God have this kind of personal relationship with him. They do not study God, they live in an acquaintance.

peter stone says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:38 am
I’m encouraged to the Roger Pielkes Sr. and Jr. are evidently widely admired on this blog.
…

You might also like this:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmsopheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

I’m encouraged to the Roger Pielkes Sr. and Jr. are evidently widely admired on this blog. However, it’s odd that he the Pielke’s fundamentally do completely agree that humans are “significantly” and “predominantly” effecting the climate (their words); that human caused climate change is “real” (their word) even if they have legitimate scientific opinions about the magnitude of CO2 contributions versus other human contributions to changes on climate, and on mitigation measures to reduce the “real” and “significant” (their words) human impact on climate. Kudos to the Pielkes for recognizing that human impacts to climate is “real” and “significant”, and for their contributions to legitimate scientific debate.
=============================================

I don’t know what point you are trying to make. You then go on to quote Pielke thus: “HUMANS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide.”

That is precisely the point – beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. As you also quote “The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”

This is spot on, and crucial to the point many AGW sceptics are trying to make. It follows that if the IPCC have been too conservative in recognising these other forcings, then they have equally been too liberal with their assessment of carbon dioxide. Their projected and modeled climate sensitivity is skewed towards carbon dioxide because of this bias. By increasing Pielke’s other forcings, they would have to reduce the sensitivity of carbon dioxide in order to match observations. Therefore the carbon dioxide sensitivity must turn out to be less than the IPCC are alleging.

If you take all the global warming and attribute it to anthropogenic causes, and compare the change to what has occurred in the past, there is nothing to separate the current warming from past warming, nor from the magnitude of natural processes. That is what it all comes down to, magnitude of effect. I see the sum of anthropological effects as smaller than natural variation. It appears the CAGW camp believes there are orders of magnitude of difference, but there is no data to support such conjecture.

This thread is getting silly.
The subject of this thread is
‘Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper’

It is NOT the existence or non-existence of God
It is NOT the evolution of energy, matter, the elements, molecules, and/or living things,
It is NOT whether or not Pielke jnr and/or snr thinks climate change is caused in part or in whole by humans.

It is ‘Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper’

It seems that supporters of the AGW hypothesis want to promote the falsehoods clearly stated by peter stone at September 2, 2011 at 6:39 pm where he wrote;
“Mr. Spencer,
Your paper was deemed flawed and not worthy of publication by the editor of Remote Sensing.
He felt “Remote Sensing”‘s error was so egregious in accepting your paper for publication, that he should take the unusual step of resigning.”

Those falsehoods are clearly refuted by the Editor of Remote Sensing in his letter of resignation.

Following it having been shown in this thread that the falsehoods are untrue spin, it seems that supporters of the AGW hypothesis want to stop discussion of their falsehoods by talking about anything else.

Please, people, ignore all the dangled ‘red herrings’. Keep to discussion of the topic because the number of ‘red herrings’ demonstrates that supporters of the AGW hypothesis are running scared of the topic.

Obviously, the warmists took the S&B paper and subsequent publicity as a major hit to the Team. They responded by having a supporter fall on his sword to generate publicity for the “rebuttal.” The Team realize they are still losing the battle and have started sacrificing their own. They are imploding and they know it. All’s well that ends well. :)

Peter Stone & several others are trolls. Can we please require that posts remain reasonably on topic.

For example:
Peter’s last post is a straw man. Peter’s “straw man” supposes that most everyone on this site do not accept that man has an effect on climate. I think nearly all skeptics accept that man has some impact as this is something which is very obvious on a local regional level (such as – coal burning caused airborne soot and likely caused pea-soup fog in London for years during the last century). Also most skeptics accept that if all else is equal then CO2 should potentially have a slight warming affect. The divergence between skeptics and warmists is the degree of relative importance of man-made CO2 effects compared to many other possible factors & feedbacks within a very poorly understood complex system with convection and circulation.

1) “fundamental methodological errors [and] false claims” – Specifics: none given? I’m sure the public battle will shed light here.
2) “the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions” – Did the authors? That’s not a rhetorical question, where did they do as claimed? I’m looking at the cited sources and I don’t agree so what am I missing? As for “like-minded sceptics” there’s a generalization and guilt by association for-the-lose.
3) “trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon” – I can’t argue that in short so I’ll just leave it as a bullet.

Then we get some of the “good” stuff

4) “The political views of the authors and the thematic goal of their study did, of course, alone not disqualify the paper from entering the review process”, The paper wasn’t disqualified from entering the review process, so why are you mentioning their political views and thematic goal? Are you pointing out a coming change?
5) “it should not be done in isolation” – so it upset too many people who threaten with ostracization rather than debate with intelligent discussion, but maybe we should put at least some of that responsibility on the ones deciding to be upset? I think it’s essential for scientists to be more intellectual and less emotional when dealing with the data and analysis.
6) “three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions” – oh yeah, there’s some more of the TRUTH for ya! They didn’t blindly flush the paper so we can make some assumptions they are in cahoots or just guilty by association. Or they weren’t aware of the literature that “to some extent” makes this paper irrelevant.
7) “editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed…[not] to reject all controversial papers” – only less than all, right ;)
8) “comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature” – Argument on this matter has ensued by the appropriate parties, but I do wonder why only “to some extent” it’s been refuted in writing yet somehow consists of “fundamental methodological errors [and] false claims”, and what are the differences between this paper and the “comparable”, but not identical, papers? And what happened to your claim that “The use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models is therefore a very important part of our work”?

0 ) “Scopus, Europe’s most important citation database” – Is this the leverage used to bring this about, threatening the removal of the journal from the database, reducing its relevance to the world? Are you telling us where the ostracise card was played with this mention?

Guilty Dogs Bark First and Loudest.
Some doth protest to louldly.
They always re-visit the place where the crime was committed.
Junk-In = Junk-out
Just await the facts, the facts will come to them and the cooling facts will put the cold water on them and end their mad redistribution of wealth cult.

I’m sure that most people here have excellent troll detectors, and quickly start using the “next” key to bypass further posts by the same troll or responses to their red herrings. On the other hand, they do clutter up threads.

Nonetheless, it is mildly interesting to note that there’s a correlation between the “danger level” of the material of the thread and the “rank” of troll sent to try and disrupt it. Stone and Drew appear fairly articulate for trolls, so I presume that the topic of this thread is bothersome enough to the Forces of Darkness that they’ve sent a couple of non-coms instead of the usual grunts.

Dave Springer says:
September 4, 2011 at 9:49 am
…
My take is that Wagner and Remote Sensing Journal in general got flooded with complaints and threats from all the usual suspects with vested emotional and professional interest in the CAGW narrative and it was decided by the owners of the journal that the only way to quench the flames was for Wagner to resign.

I think the more parsimonious conclusion was that Wagner was induced/coerced to request RS retract the paper. RS refused, and Wagner had nowhere to go but out.

In regards to this link https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/about/errata.do given earlier, the reason you are getting that message Anthony is that the security certificate being provided for verification has expired.

At that url is a page listing the known data errors WCRP CMIP Multi-Model Data

Early on in this thread I suggested that Wolfgang Wagner had likely scored a massive “own goal”. As events have unfolded since then, Kevin Trenberth has weighed in (see “The science is scuttled” thread at WUWT). This is no longer a massive “own goal”.

Words may fail to describe what has happened. Wagner has, in fact, scored a massive “own goal”, establishing the legitimacy and importance of the SB paper, drawing world wide attention to it, and at the same time attempting to discredit it through what amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign. He has discredited and made a fool of himself, as well as the AGW “science” he purports to defend.

Along comes Trenberth, who has fittingly poured gasoline on himself, lit himself afire, and runs screaming in circles shouting “I made him do it! I made him do it!”

The Three Travesties of Trenberth

1. The missing heat (ClimateGate emails)
2. It escaped to space, the one place he refused to look for it (SB paper)
3. In trying to cover it up, Trenberth has given it the kind of publicity money cannot buy, and pointed the finger directly at himself as the chief architect of the cover up.

What shall we call these? WaterGate and ClimateGate were cover ups too. But neither Nixon nor “the Team” were insane enough to proudly proclaim themselves as the architects of the cover up. They attempted to spin the mess they created into something it wasn’t. Can you imagine Nixon going on national television and proudly proclaiming that he ordered the spying to try and protect democracy?

This is a whole new level of cover up and “gate” just seems an inadequate term.

Wagner has no expertise to call it anything. In his position the proper thing to do would have been to wait for rebuttals, publish them in the same journal and ask the original authors for a response. That’s how science is done and he should know it.

Of course he may resign any time, but with a personal note of apology to (who else?) Kevin Trenberth (and let him boast about it in public)? WTF!? While admitting his Chinese partners made fool of him… The whole thing is beyond funny, it is hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

After this it takes a generation, at least, to rebuild scientific credibility. The scandal is not restricted to climate science as such anymore, it starts to do real harm to the public perception of “science” in general. It is high time to stop this suicidal madness before it gets too late.

From a post over at Bishiphill; Is AR5 finished before it begins. Here is an interesting excerpt I thought relevant:

It’s a possibility I suppose. We might assume that:

■when the Team said they would get rid of von Storch and he subsequently resigned this was just a coincidence
■when the Team discussed getting rid of Saiers and he was subsequently removed from responsibility for the McIntyre/McKitrick paper, this was just a coincidence too
■the non-appearance of McKitrick and Michaels’ paper in AR4 drafts was not connected to Jones’ suggestion that he would keep it out of the review
■Wagner’s resignation was a reasonable response to a blog post at Real Climate
■etc.

But, you know, I’m just not sure how many coincidences like this we can be expected to bear.

Andrew Dessler – …Texas University of Agriculture & Mining
TAMU vs. MIT???? No contest.
Dessler is the best “the team” can come up with to dispute Spencer? An Aggie? Aggies are usually the butt of jokes in Texas. To be fair, if you want a degree in animal husbandry there’s not finer university for it but atmospheric physics? ROFLMAO

Is this a new version of “my Daddy’s bigger than your Daddy?” I mean, come on – I’m all for tearing up Dessler’s science standing or work if it deserves tearing up, but an ad hom by way of TAMU that isn’t even correct? It’s Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University. I’ve no idea of their current standing, but there’ve been many years where A&M was in the top few universities nationally for engineering, science, business, etc. Most Texans are quite proud of TAMU, and no one likes a good Aggie joke better than Aggie’s themselves. One of the most well known Aggie jokes anywhere is “Q: What do you call an Aggie after graduation? A: Boss.” which is invariably followed by a wry chuckle and the response “true!”

Meanwhile, I don’t think a “Texas University” even exists. University of Texas, sure, or Texas Tech. University, or even Texas State University. I think there used to even be a Texas State School of Mines (per your ‘Mining’) that’s now part of the UT system. But don’t believe there’s a TU.

As a Texas A&M University graduate (of many years past), I thank you for your trust in our abilities in engineering and agriculture and earning-powers as bosses. (Gov Perry, a TAMU graduate in ’69 who then went on to become a successful (ie, not dead) fighter pilot, should he become President, must extend his own reputation as a politician and leader into those arenas.)

tu does exist, but only in the sarcastic minds of Aggies who refuse to accept that “The University of Texas” is not the “the (only) university” in Texas. 8<)

Regardless, the dear Dr. Andrew Dessler is only a professor from Rice University (1986) with a BA, who was later granted a PhD from Harvard (1994). He is no “Aggie” and has not been graduated by anybody at A&M. (Which might be part of the problem here.)

If you disagree with the S&B paper and its conclusions – why are you here attacking them personally rather than advocating for a PROPER SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE? Which would be to post a rebuttal – in Remote Sensing.

What is your opinion of the ad hominem attacks by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick. Do you support them?

If the science is as bad as you all allege, why aren’t you advocating FOLLOWING the PROPER SCIENTIFIC PROCESS and refuting this bad science?

“In regards to this link https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/about/errata.do given earlier, the reason you are getting that message Anthony is that the security certificate being provided for verification has expired.”

You are allegedly a scientist in the field. An honest question … why is it you are here attacking and denigrating the S&B work rather than responding thru the normal scientific process?

How do you feel about the terrible trio of Trenbarth, Abraham and Gleick’s attacks on the S&B work – and their outright denigration of Spencer – instead of proper scientific rebuttal, especially in light of Trenbarth’s statements (Climategate emails) he would do whatever he could, including subverting the scientific process (yes I’ve paraphrased), to prevent unfavorable work from being published?

What about Dressler’s alleged response – what is your position on their ignoring yet again the scientific process and publishing the response to S&B in a DIFFERENT publication, rather than following the process and posting as a reply in Remote Sensing? Do you approve of and condone this? And if so why?

These are fair questions – I think everyone here would be interested in your learned response.

OK. There are +530 comments above this one. Most of them are supportive of Dr. Spencer, Dr. Braswell, and Dr. Christy and their efforts to get empirical data and subordinate analysis published and seriously considered in the AGW debate. I believe I have read each one but I found few if any suggestions on direct actions that we should be taking to support them! How do we translate all of that positive talk into real action items?

Consider this the initiation of a WUWT brainstorming session! What can we do to support them? Please offer any and all achievable actions that we, as irascible individuals and as a motley group, might take to support Spencer’s, Brasswell’s, and Christy’s positions and drive their opposition into increasingly difficult to defend positions! How can we effectively help them?

Brainstorming Rules:
No suggestions are too outrageous.
Humor is welcome!
Do not attack other peoples suggestions.
After sufficient suggestions are captured, prioritize based on effectiveness and simplicity of implementation.
Experiment with different actions, that better suit individual talents.
Take Action and Measure Results.

“In regards to this link https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/about/errata.do given earlier, the reason you are getting that message Anthony is that the security certificate being provided for verification has expired.”

So there’s a bunch of errata. Did you expect an array of remote sensing satellites that are constantly growing old and having nodes replaced to NOT have erratum? Get a clue, dopey.

At that url is a page listing the known data errors WCRP CMIP Multi-Model Data

________________________________________________________________

Hey Dave stick a sock in it,

I was just telling Anthony what was at that URL and why he got the message he got.

For your information I expect all kinds of errors in anything done by a group that hasn’t a clue about possible sources of errors outside of normal measurement gotchas (and with some of these clowns I’m not so sure they understand measurement errors).

You can demand that the warming mafiosi simply follow the existing scientific process … if you disagree with a published work such as this – then submit a rebuttal TO THE PUBLICATION that published the paper … that scientific process allows and encourages open debate – encourages review from all … provided the authors release the information necessary for others to replicate their work – something else the climate cabal seems to have an issue with …

For pure stupidity and ignorance, it’s going to be hard for Warmistas to surpass this statement any time soon: “…This is…the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models.” –Peter Gleick

Mac the Knife says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm
OK. There are +530 comments above this one. Most of them are supportive of Dr. Spencer, Dr. Braswell, and Dr. Christy and their efforts to get empirical data and subordinate analysis published and seriously considered in the AGW debate. I believe I have read each one but I found few if any suggestions on direct actions that we should be taking to support them! How do we translate all of that positive talk into real action items?

Seriously, the idea is exactly right: But note that Dr Christy wrote in above to this thread, and I’d expect the others affected would be readers as well. Dr Spencer contributes regularly to this site, so he definitely has access.

Encourage them, write to them with your words of encouragement. (Martyrs do not like dying alone with only their courage as a witness! Note: They may still die, but they need to know they are not alone.)

Write to the journal in question. Paper copy and on-line. Protest their prejudices. (Idiots and prejudiced editors do not like being exposed in public! They may still be prejudiced and be idiots, but they know they are being exposed.)

Write to the other “science” journals. Make THEM realize that many read their works, and their efforts to hide things behind the mantra of “my knowledge” (or “my group’s theory” is the “only knowledge” is dead wrong.

Brillliant! This is why readers have to keep following threads at WUWT – bloggers like you provide insight, information and analysis that is just stupendous (and entertaining to boot). I just hope this ‘own goal’ and Trenberth’s ‘self-immolation’ get recognized for what they really mean by the wider scientific community. But if other commentators here are correct, scientists will stay silent rather than be singled out for such nasty attention as is specialized in by Trenberth et al.

Mac the Knife says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm
————————————-
If S&B want all the chips on the table, the only way to determine Trenberth’s role definitively is through the discovery process in a libel suit.

Otherwise this is all just ammunition for more back and forth suppositions in the “internet fora”.

Best double check your assumptions, Chris. Lemme help: http://www.tamu.edu/about/facts/faq.html
Although A&M has long been known as having one of – if not the – top petroleum engineering curriculums, but that’s not quite mining. ;-)

It is interesting that some editors still publish controversial articles. Apparently possibility of shame and resignation is not enough to prevent them.
Perhaps scientific community should reestablish punishments that had better tracking records through the history. In particular, certain punishment involving an oxidation process seems to be most appropriate for climate skeptics, deniers and their supporters. With that punishment and with the funding sources traced down and redirected back to the mainstream science this skepticism nonsense can finally be eradicated.

For those who have claimed that Remote Sensing is somehow an obscure non-climate related publication … here is the recap on the SPECIAL ISSUE that S&B was published in – whcih shows it to be directly on topic …

his special issue is dedicated to compile articles on:

-climate monitoring and analysis based on satellite derived essential climate variables.
-methods for the retrieval of Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) in climate quality.
-methods for the calibration and inter-calibration of satellite radiances.
-improvements of methods for the assimilation of satellite data within reanalysis.
-methods for data fusion of satellite based variables with reanalysis data and/or in-situ -measurements
-climate applications dealing with satellite based climate variables

“Is this a new version of “my Daddy’s bigger than your Daddy?” I mean, come on – I’m all for tearing up Dessler’s science standing or work if it deserves tearing up, but an ad hom by way of TAMU that isn’t even correct? It’s Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University.”

Yes, it is essentially my daddy’s bigger than your daddy. If you have two doctors giving you an opinion about cancer treatment would you be more inclined to trust a top rated doctor at Sloan-Kettering or one of no particular repute that works a local hospital in your home?

The general public isn’t able to assess either Dressler’s or Lindzen’s work by the merits alone as that generally takes at least more than being a novice in the field just as the general cancer patient can’t blindly assess the diagnosis and recommendation from two different doctors. So we rely on the reputations of the doctor and the institutions they work for instead.

Thanks for the correction on TAMU where the M is mechanical not mining. Not sure why I thought it was mining but I won’t make the mistake again. The difference isn’t relevant in any case. Atmospheric physics is equally far removed from mining as it is from mechanical.

” I’ve no idea of their current standing, but there’ve been many years where A&M was in the top few universities nationally for engineering, science, business, etc.”

Nowhere near the reputation of MIT, my friend.

“Most Texans are quite proud of TAMU, and no one likes a good Aggie joke better than Aggie’s themselves. One of the most well known Aggie jokes anywhere is “Q: What do you call an Aggie after graduation? A: Boss.” which is invariably followed by a wry chuckle and the response “true!””

Ivy League graduates aren’t likely to be calling an Aggie “boss”. Not for long anyway. In Texas where there is a lot more unskilled labor than other states… a one-eyed man is king where everyone else is blind. Texas A&M doesn’t even compare to UT-Austin as a research institution except perhaps in agriculture which is A&M’s specialty.

I’m encouraged though that you have such high respect for TAMU given Rick Perry is an alumnus. Perry’s family are tenent farmers. Perry got a TAMU degree in agriculture, then served four years as a C-130 pilot in the USAF, then went home to manage the family farm, then eventually became Agricultural Commissioner for Texas, then Lt. Gov., the the longest serving governor in Texas history. Let’s hope that respect for TAMU translates into national recognition but I fear Obama is going to have the talking point as Harvard graduate even if he was an affirmative action baby.

“Meanwhile, I don’t think a “Texas University” even exists.”

TAMU = Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University

Take out the historic academic focus and you’re left with Texas University.

“I was just telling Anthony what was at that URL and why he got the message he got.”

And I was just telling you that SSL certificates should renew automatically unless the server is abandoned.

“For your information I expect all kinds of errors in anything done by a group that hasn’t a clue about possible sources of errors outside of normal measurement gotchas (and with some of these clowns I’m not so sure they understand measurement errors).”

Yeah right. As compared to the global circulation models which were written once and never had a line of code changed in them again. ROFLMAO. I repeat: Get a clue, dopey.

I’ve read that Ioannidis article, and it gave me great pause. In an era when scientific research and government and corporate money go hand in hand, I worry about the degree to which these guys have become blinded to reality by their own biases and financial interests. Science and politics have become TOO intermingled. This is certainly the case with The Team. And this is also why the current system has to be “blown up” (metaphorically) and restarted over.

Consider this the initiation of a WUWT brainstorming session! What can we do to support them? Please offer any and all achievable actions that we, as irascible individuals and as a motley group, might take to support Spencer’s, Brasswell’s, and Christy’s positions and drive their opposition into increasingly difficult to defend positions! How can we effectively help them?

Here’s something I posted on a different S&B thread here:

There is an opportunity to make lemonade here. (“When the going gets tough, make lemonade.”) S&B could call for a “jury” of a dozen distinguished retired scientists from various relevant fields outside climatology to hear & read the evidence, question the opponents, consult with experts (both sides could supply names), and issue opinions on this controversy.

Each side could name three members, and those members could chose the other members. (Alternatively, some members could be selected by any scientific society under whose auspices the Inquiry (as it should be called) is held.) Members should be warned that their names and votes will be etched in stone on a wall somewhere, to shame them in the future if they vote for what’s convenient or appealing now, rather than doing the right thing.

This Inquiry could serve as a template for dozens of similar additional Inquiries on other contested points of the GW controversy.

PS: Scientists who have taken strong positions–or maybe any positions–on the GW controversy would not be allowed to serve as “jurists.”

““I was just telling Anthony what was at that URL and why he got the message he got.”

And I was just telling you that SSL certificates should renew automatically unless the server is abandoned.”

There are thousands of ssl certificates that expire and aren’t timely renewed and it doesn’t mean the server is abandoned.

““For your information I expect all kinds of errors in anything done by a group that hasn’t a clue about possible sources of errors outside of normal measurement gotchas (and with some of these clowns I’m not so sure they understand measurement errors).”

Yeah right. As compared to the global circulation models which were written once and never had a line of code changed in them again. ROFLMAO. I repeat: Get a clue, dopey.”

You need to get a clue Dave, rarely is more than a couple of lines of programming written that doesn’t get changed due to errors in the code let alone errors in the underlying system design.

ALL I WAS DOING WAS TELLING Anthony WHAT WAS CAUSING THE MESSAGE AND WHAT WAS AT THE LOCATION, NOTHING ELSE.

I’ve read that Ioannidis article, and it gave me great pause. In an era when scientific research and government and corporate money go hand in hand, I worry about the degree to which these guys have become blinded to reality by their own biases and financial interests. Science and politics have become TOO intermingled.

Frankly at this point I think the Ioannidis work ought to be required reading for anyone in a science class – and I wish there were also some way to get all working scientists to read it also. It is an awfully disconcerting situation for all of us who truly value the scientific method and what it has allowed us to accomplish in such a short period of time, isn’t it?

I’ve also been very concerned by the advent of ‘post normal science’ (talk about a doublethink Orwellian anti-science concept!). I don’t know how far that concept has actually managed to penetrate teaching, however – but apparently it is/was being taught at Oxford no less. I wish I had a better feeling for just how much that anathema has managed to penetrate science education – and gawd how I hope the answer is “not very much at all.” I can’t help but worry that the actual answer may be ‘far too much’ tho.